Amit Rawal, J. - (1.) Petitioner-Insurance Company (respondent No.3 in the claim petition) is aggrieved of the dismissal of the application seeking permission of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to place on record additional evidence.
(2.) Mr.Vishal Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitionerInsurance Company submits that the petitioner issued the policy on 21.4.2012. The vehicle met with an accident on 22.4.2012. The aforementioned policy was issued on the basis of the previous policy expired on 20.4.2013 and discount of 45% on account of 'no claim bonus' was granted. Later on, it was realised that the previous policy was not the original one. The case is at the state of respondents' evidence.
(3.) Mr.Jitender Kundu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 submits that they have not verified the previous policy, but some other policy and, therefore, the application for leading additional evidence appears to be insignificant. The requirement of the additional evidence is also wanting and, thus, urges this Court for affirming the findings.;