Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J.

The appellant has moved an application for filing additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. He has also filed the affidavit along with the said application and has annexed the certificate issued from the office of R.T.O. indicating therein that no application for transfer of the name of the registered owner had been received back by the office of R.T.O.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant of the basis of the aforesaid documents has tried to submit that the application which has been referred to in the impugned judgment for transfer of ownership of the motorcycle had in fact never been filed by the registered owner-Narendra Pal. I do not find any force in this argument. The appellant had sufficient opportunity to produce the evidence before the Tribunal in order to show that no application for transfer of the ownership had been filed by the registered owner-Narendra Pal before the R.T.O. but he had made no efforts to produce either any official from the office of R.T.O. or any other cogent and reliable evidence in this regard. The application is therefore barred by the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27-AA of C.P.C. as no due diligence has been observed by the appellant before the Tribunal in order to produce the adequate evidence in support of his case.

3. Thus, the application filed by appellant under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. being without any force is rejected.

4. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in M.A.C.P. No. 55 of 2002, Smt. Dulari Devi versus Pooran Singh Mehra & others.

5. Briefly stated the facts, according to the claimant, are that deceased-Ram Singh, husband of claimant, was employed as Mill Engine Driver in Kichha Sugar Mill. On 7.12.2001 when deceased-Ram Singh was going after finishing his duty, opposite party no. 1 dashed the deceased by driving his motorcycle No. U.P. 04B-2067 rashly and sustained grievous injuries on his person and succumbed to those injuries on 10.2.2002 during treatment. The claimant has pleaded that at the time of accident deceased-Ram Singh was 55 years of age and used to get Rs. 5000/- per month as salary from employer-Kichha Sugar Mill. The claimant also claimed for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of income, mental pain and agony, a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards cremation of deceased and other religious activities, Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses. The claimant also pleaded that had her husband been alive, he would have got salary till his retirement which she also suffered. The claimant thus claimed for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation against the opposite parties.

6. Opposite party no. 1-Pooran Singh Mehra filed written statement refuting the contents of claim petition. He denied that he was driving the offending motorcycle No. U.P.04B-2067 and he was the owner of offending motorcycle at the time of accident. He has pleaded that he had neither been the owner of motorcycle in question nor the alleged offending motorcycle had been in his possession. He has further pleaded that when he received summons he enquired from the office of R.T.O. and on inquiry he came to know that motorcycle in question was registered in the name of Narendra Pal. He also took plea that he has falsely been implicated in this case as driver due to enmity with son of deceased-Suresh Kumar.

7. Opposite party no.2-Narendra Pal filed written statement refuting the contents of claim petition. He has pleaded that he sold the vehicle on 4.8.2001 to Harjeet Singh for a sum of Rs.20,500/-. The accident in this case occurred on 7.12.2001 i.e. after more than four months of alleged sale of motorcycle. He has further pleaded that he handed over registration papers and insurance policy etc. to Harjeet Singh and a receipt pertaining to all papers and docum