FAO No. 1321 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1321 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.01.2010 National Insurance Company Ltd. ....Appellant Versus Pooja Rani and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Vivek Singal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) CM No. 6571-CII of 2009 This application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been moved for leading additional evidence. It has been averred in the application, that the driving licence held by the driver was a fake licence, but the verification report dated 4.11.2008 could not be produced before the learned Tribunal, as it was received on 8.12.2008, when the evidence of the appellant had already been closed, and award passed. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, is that as this evidence, is necessary for this Court to reach at the correct decision, the application be allowed. The application is opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of non-applicant-respondent No.1, by contending that the FAO No. 1321 of 2009 (O&M) -2- evidence now sought to be produced cannot be said to be such evidence, which was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be found with due diligence. It is further the case of the non-applicant, that the report now sought to be produced is not per se admissible, and will be required to be proved by examining witnesses. The appellant in the garb of additional evidence, wants to re-open the case, specially when the evidence of the applicant-appellant was ordered to be closed, by the order of the learned Tribunal in not leading evidence in spite of availing number of opportunities in this regard. It is well settled law, that the additional evidence cannot be allowed merely to fill up lacuna, and that no evidence by way of additional evidence can be allowed, which was within the knowledge of the applicant-appellant, or could easily be found out with due diligence. No ground for leading additional evidence is made out. Dismissed. FAO No. 1321 of 2009 By way of this appeal, the Insurance Company has challenged the impugned part of the award dated 5.12.2008 vide which the right of recovery from the owner of the vehicle, has been denied. The Insurance Company, in a petition filed by the claimant for grant of compensation, had taken a plea, that it was not liable to indemnify the owner, as the driver did not hold the valid driving licence. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed issue No.3, which reads as under: - “Whether respondent No.1 was not duly licensed driver, if so to what effect? OPR” FAO No. 1321 of 2009 (O&M) -3- The appellant failed to lead any evidence in support of issue No.3 and, therefore, this was decided against the Insurance Company and the right of recovery was declined. Once, the appellant has failed to lead any evidence on issue No.3, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned award. This appeal is ordered to be dismissed in limine being without any merit. No costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge January 22, 2010 R.S.