P. Mandal, J. - (1.) This application is at the instance of the claimant and is directed against the order No. 40 dated May 27, 2008 passed by the learned Judge, M.A.C.C. Tribunal cum Additional District Judge, Fast Track First Court, Contai in M.A.C.C. No. 261 of 2004.
(2.) The claimant filed an application for compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the insurance company/opposite party No. 1 herein is contesting the said claim application. The case was at the stage of hearing argument after close of the evidence on behalf of both the parties. At that stage, the insurer / opposite party No. 1 herein filed two application, one for filing an additional written statement and another for leave to file additional written statement. Upon hearing both the sides, the prayer of the insurance company was allowed and the additional written statement filed by the insurance company was accepted. At that stage, the insurance company prayed for production of driving on the pretext that from the evidence it has been brought to light that one Tapan Kumar Samanta drove the alleged vehicle without any driving licence. But the driving licence of the offending vehicle belonged to one Upendra Mandal. Under the circumstances, the claimant was directed to produce the copy of the driving licence as prayed for in the petition dated June 13, 2006. That prayer was allowed. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.
(3.) Now, the point for consideration is whether the impugned order should be sustained.;