ORDER :

1. Heard Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants assisted by Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. Harendra Kumar Singh, counsel appearing on behalf of United India Insurance Company Limited.

3. Nobody appears on behalf of the other respondents.

4. Counsel for the appellants submits that these two appeals have been tagged together, in view of the fact that these cases arising out of same accident in which two persons had expired and separate claim petitions were filed before the learned court below with regard to each of them.

5. The counsel for the appellants submits that the case of the claimants in Claim Case No. 52 of 1997 (M.A. No. 200 of 2007) as well as in Claim Case No. 58 of 1997 (M.A. No. 199 of 2007) was that deceased Karu Rajak and deceased Basudeo Rajak, along with Mahesh Rajak, Ritlal Mahto and others were travelling by Trekker No. BR-13P-0298 and they had boarded on the said trekker at Bagodar and were going to Gopaldih. It is further stated that as soon as the trekker reached near Tirla More at about 9:00 a.m., a bus, driven by its driver, rashly and negligently, bearing Registration No. WHM-4860 coming from the side of Dumri and going towards Bagodar; dashed and collided from the opposite direction with Trekker No. BR-13P-0298. The accident caused damage to the trekker and also caused grievous injuries to the passengers of the trekker including the deceased Karu Rajak and Basudeo Rajak. It is further stated that Karu Rajak and Basudeo Rajak were brought to the hospital where they died during course of the treatment. Karu Rajak was the unmarried son of the claimants in Claim case no. 52 of 1997 (M.A No. 200 of 2007). Wife of Basudeo Rajak along with other claimants filed Claim Case No. 58 of 1997 (M.A. No. 199 of 2007). A Criminal Case was also registered which was Case No. 116 of 1997, under Section 279, 337 and 427 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

6. It is further submitted that the vehicles were insured, the deceased were third parties and the claimants were entitled to compensation. The counsel for the appellant submits that they are neither disputing the accident nor disputing the quantum of compensation but they are aggrieved only by the extent of liability which would intimately fall upon them, inter alia, due to non-production of the driving licence of the driver of the trekker.

7. The counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are the owners of the trekker involved in the accident. She submits that one interlocutory application being I.A. No. 2401 of 2014 has been filed under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in M.A. No. 200 of 2007 and another interlocutory application being I.A. No. 2796 of 2012 has been filed under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in M.A. No. 199 of 2007 for the purposes of adducing additional evidence at the appellate stage in connection with the driving license of the driver of the trekker and the permit issued by the Office of Regional Transport Authority in connection with the trekker involved in the accident. She submits that both the interlocutory applications are for same reliefs.

8. While pressing aforesaid interlocutory applications for adducing additional evidence in the aforesaid two cases, the counsel has referred to Para 2 of the interlocutory application and has submitted that the appellants had handed over photocopy of the driving license of the driver to their counsels who informed them that it was filed, but was not marked exhibit. However, Counsel for the appellants, after going through the Lower Court Records which have been received, could not substantiate the statement made in Para 2 of the aforesaid interlocutory applications. She submits that for the ends of justice, the driving license be marked as an exhibit and the petition for adducing additional evidence may be allowed. She further submits that the genuineness of t