The court ruled that failure to produce required documents and inadequate explanation of appeal delay are grounds for dismissal, reaffirming the need for timely submission of evidence in legal processes.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.

2. I.A. No.11561 of 2023 has been filed for condoning of delay of 524 days in filing of the present appeal and formal ground has been taken in the said I.A. of preparation of appeal and in filing of the appeal the said delay has occurred.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that proper explanation is not made.

4. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 11.02.2022 passed in M.A.C. Case No.04 of 2017 by learned District Judge-III-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bokaro whereby the award was passed in favour of the claimants and insurance company was directed to pay the awarded amount and recover the same from the appellant, who is the owner of the vehicle in question.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the driving license and permit was not produced before the learned Court and in view of that the finding has been against the owner of the insurance company and in view of that the direction has been made to pay and recover from the appellant. He submits that the permit and driving license was available, however, the same was not filed before the learned Court and in view of that I.A. No.3175 of 2025 has been filed under Order 41 Rule 27 annexing the said documents to allow the same at the appellate stage. On this ground, he submits that this appeal may kindly be allowed after condoning the delay and the additional evidence may kindly be considered in deciding the said appeal.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that the driving license and the permit was not produced before the learned Court and in view of that the finding is against the appellant herein and in view of that the direction of recovery has been made. He submits that the insurance company has already satisfied the award and claims have been paid and they have filed the application for recovery of the said amount from the appellant and thereafter the present appeal has been presented. He submits that even due diligence is not disclosed in filing of the I.A. under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, as such the same cannot be accepted by this Court at this stage.

7. It is an admitted position that appellant herein contested the case before the learned Court and he has not produced the driving license and permit before the learned Court and the learned Court has given that finding against the appellant, who is the owner of the vehicle in question. This aspect of the matter has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh and Another vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited and Others , (2018) 7 SCC 558 , wherein at paragraph Nos. 7 to 9 and 23, it has been held as under :-

7.The conclusions recorded by the Tribunal and further confirmed by the High Court clearly show that the accident occurred on 19-2-2013 and the competent authority issued the permit on 27-2-2013. In this regard, Sections 2(28) and 2(31) of the Act that define “motor vehicle” or “vehicle” and “permit” are reproduced below:

“2. (28) “motor vehicle” or “vehicle” means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having