Amitav Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 14.08.2008 passed in Claim Case No. 58 of 2001 passed by 1st Additional District Judge -Cum - M.V.A.C.T., Giridih.
(2.) I .A. No. 2403 of 2010. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/owner of the vehicle that the learned Tribunal without affording any opportunity to the appellant, has passed the judgment on the basis of 'Ext. -D' holding that the driver, Sanjay Kumar Kujur possessed license to drive L.M.V only and not H.M.V. Accordingly it has held that since there was violation of condition of Section 149(2) of the M.V. Act, it has fixed the liability on the appellant/owner of the vehicle with a direction to the Insurance Company to pay the awarded compensation amount with right to recover the same from the owner, i.e., appellant. It is argued that the finding of the learned Tribunal is erroneous, as Sanjay Kumar Kujur -driver was holding a valid and effective driving license with an endorsement dated 19.03.1994 for driving of H.M.V. That the accident took place on 10.01.2001, and the driver had a valid license to drive the vehicle in question. That the appellant had applied for the information before the District Transport Officer, Lohardaga and the particulars of driving license of Sanjay Kumar Kujur being D.L. No. 1185 of 1991 was provided subsequently, after passing of the order. It is submitted that since the owner -appellant was denied the opportunity to bring on record the said driving license for proper adjudication of the issue hence owner -appellant be given an opportunity with liberty to adduce the evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. by remitting the case to the court below. Learned counsel appearing for the United India Insurance Company has vehemently opposed and submitted that the appellant has made false assertion in the affidavit stating that no opportunity was given. It is argued that the owner/appellant had appeared and filed his written statement but did not take any steps in the case as is evident from the recital of the judgment. It is urged that when the liability was fixed on the owner with right to recovery granted to the respondent/owner the present application has been filed false assertion that he was not given an opportunity by the learned Tribunal not be allowed due to lack of bonafide document. It is contended that in the case of Union of India Vrs. Ibrahim Uddin and Another reported in : 2012(8) SCC 148, the Apex Court has observed and held that in the case of additional evidence for lack of due diligence of party seeking production of additional evidence the party who is guilty of remissness in not producing evidence in the Court cannot be allowed to produce subsequently. That there must be satisfactory reasons for non -production of the evidence in trial Court and in the facts of the present case, the interlocutory application deserves to be rejected.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent -United India Insurance Company has further submitted that Ext. -D which was the judgment passed in claim Case No. 57 of 2001 arising out of the same accident has not been challenged and it has attained finality and the appellant has not challenged it and he cannot be permitted to bring in the additional evidence at this stage.;