JUDGMENT

Sri.B.S.Basavaraju., learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.Raghavendra.S.V., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.A.V.Srihari., for respondent No.1 have appeared in person.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts are these:

On the 25th day of April 2008 at about 10:45 pm., the claimant was coming from Athur Village on Chettalli -

Suntikoppa main road on his motorbike bearing Registration No.KA-09-W-3903. At that time, a Mahindra and Mahindra Commander Jeep bearing Registration No.KA-04-MNA-5422 came from the side of Suntikoppa towards Chettalli on the wrong side on the extreme right side in a rash and negligent manner and hit his motorbike. Due to the impact, the claimant fell and sustained grievous injuries. He took treatment in various hospitals from 26.04.2008 to 13.09.2008. Contending that he is entitled for compensation, the claimant filed claim petition.

In response to the notice, respondents appeared through their counsel. Respondents 1 and 2 did not file statement of objections. The third respondent filed statement of objections denying the petition averments. Among other grounds it prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The Tribunal vide Judgment dated:09.03.2012 partly allowed the claim petition and dismissed the claim petition against respondent No.3 Insurance company and directed respondents

1 and 2 to pay the compensation. The driver and the owner of the offending vehicle have assailed the Judgment of the Tribunal in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that an application in I.A.No.4/2013 is filed under Order 41 Rule 27 R/ of CPC for production of additional document i.e., driving license. Counsel submits that E.Raju - the driver of the offending vehicle has sworn to an affidavit narrating the reasons to allow the application. Counsel therefore, submits that the reasons accorded in the affidavit may be taken note of and the application may be allowed and the matter may be remanded. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in RUKMANI AND OTHERS VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.

LIMITED AND OTHERS reported in 1999 ACJ 171.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company justified the Judgment of the Tribunal. Counsel submits that the application may be dismissed and appropriate order may be passed.

Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the appeal papers, the application and the records with utmost care.

5. The following points would arise for consideration:

1. Whether the application for production of additional document requires to be allowed and the matter requires a remand.

2. Whether the Judgment of the Tribunal requires interference.

6. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. An attempt is made on behalf of the driver E.Raju that he did not contest the claim petition and did not furnish the driving license due to personal inconvenience.

Perused the application with utmost care. The driver E.Raju has sworn to a declaration of facts in the form of an affidavit and he has furnished the copy of the driving license. Except for saying that due to personal inconvenience he did not lead evidence and furnish the driving license, no sufficient reasons are accorded to allow the application.

Learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on the decision referred to supra contended that the Insurance Company did not summon the driver and no records from the Regional Transport Authority was produced. Hence, it is sought to contend that the burden shifts on the Insurance Company. The contention urged on behalf of the appellants cannot be accepted. The reason is simple. A perusal of the order sheet of the Tribunal reveals that the claim petition was filed on 03.12.2008. Notice was ordered on