The genuineness of documents and the validity of permits are crucial in determining the liability of the Insurance Company in motor accident claims.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - All the four Misc. appeals arise out of common judgment and award, hence same are being decided together.

2. These appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 03.03.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in MAC Cases No. 576/2013 & 577/2013, whereby the claim petitions filed by the claimants were allowed and the compensation has been passed in favour of the claimants.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and award dated 03.03.2017, the claimants-appellants have preferred the S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 3256/2017 & 3261/2017 within the period of limitation for enhancement of amount of compensation.

4. The appeal bearing Nos. 2844/2019 & 2462/2019 have been submitted by the Driver & Owner-Sitaram Gurjar of the offending vehicle against the common impugned judgment and award dated 03.03.2017 after a lapse of around two years alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

5. Counsel for the driver & owner-Sitaram Gurjar submitted that the time barred appeals filed by the driver & owner-Sitaram Gurjar of the offending vehicle be treated within period of limitation as against the common impugned judgment and award dated 03.03.2017, the claimants-appellants have submitted S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 3256/2017 & 3261/2017 within prescribed period of limitation. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance in the case of Government Pre-University College & Anr. v. Jambu Kumar Mutha reported in 2014 (16) SCC 370 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the appeal against the common judgment and award is already pending, mere pragmatic view has to be taken for adjudication of the application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal by other the party. In view of the judgment passed in the case of Jambu Kumar Mutha (supra), the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed.

6. Counsel submits that while deciding issue No. 3, the Tribunal has exonerated the respondent-Insurance Company only on this ground that at the time of the accident, the owner of the vehicle was not having permit to ply the vehicle. Counsel submitted that the accident occurred on 21.04.2013 and the owner of the vehicle was having a valid permit to ply the vehicle and the validity of the said permit was effective from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2015. Counsel submitted that the said permit has been surrendered before the concerned District Transport Officer on 31.03.2014 i.e. after the date of accident which occurred on 21.04.2013. Counsel submitted that these relevant documents were supplied to the instructor of the Insurance Company after the accident and the driver & owner of the vehicle were not bonafide to believe that these documents would be submitted before the authorities that's why these documents were not placed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has decided issue No. 3 against the driver & owner of the vehicle in absence of these documents by exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability to make the payment of amount of compensation to the claimants. Counsel submitted that the appellant has got verification of the documents from the concerned District Transport Officer, Tonk and the District Transport Officer has issued a Verification Certificate in this regard on 12.04.2019 which clearly indicates that the validity of the permit was effective till 31.03.2015. Counsel submitted that genuineness of this certificate cannot be doubted as the same has been issued by the District Transport Officer, Tonk.

7. For placing this certificate on record, a separate application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has been submitted.

8. Application stands allowed for the reasons stated therein and the Verification Certificate dated 12.04.2019 issued by the District Transport Officer, Tonk is taken on record.

9. Counsel submitted that under