1 fa297 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.297 OF 2009 1 Smt.Akkatai Ganpati Patil 2 Yuvraj Ganpati Patil 3 Kum Manisha Ganpati Patil ...Appellants vs. 1 Anil Kisan Patil 2 The New India Insurance Co.Ltd. ...Respondents Mr.S.G.Thorat for the appellants Ms U.K.Sanil for the respondent no.2 CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JUNE 13, 2011 P.C.: 1 This Court has directed that this Appeal shall be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 2 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2. Office noting shows that the first respondent is duly served. 3 The appellants are the claimants in a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 4 According to the case of the appellants, accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of vehicle owned by the first respondent which was validly insured with the second respondent. In the claim application as originally filed, the registration number of the alleged offending vehicle was described as MH-09-2687. Amendment was carried out to the claim petition by which the said registration number was altered as MH-10-C-2687. By the impugned Judgment and 2 fa297 Award, the Tribunal held that the first respondent was the owner of the vehicle bearing MH-10-C-2687. On the basis of the Insurance policy at Exh.38, the Tribunal held that the second respondent was the insurer of the said vehicle. However, the claim petition was dismissed on the ground that the police papers consistently mention the registration number of the offending vehicle as MH-09-2687. 5 The learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the documents annexed to the Civil Application no. 3951 of 2006. He pointed out various documents annexed thereto including the final report submitted under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 by the Investigating Officer. He pointed out that in the said report, the vehicle number has been described as MH-10- C-2687 which is the registration number set out in the amended claim petition. It is pointed out that the documents annexed to the said Application could not be produced at the time of trial and hence, an opportunity may be granted to the appellants to lead additional evidence. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Meenaben Pankajkumar Joshi and others vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. [2010 (2) Mh.L.J. 170] 6 The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that in the First Information Report which was filed on record, a different number of the vehicle has been set out and there is no explanation as to how the documents produced along with the Application refer to another registration number. 7 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. According to the case of the appellants, the 3 fa297 correct registration number of the offending vehicle is MH-10-C-2687. There is already a finding that the first respondent was the owner of the said vehicle on the date of the accident and that the second respondent was the insurer of the vehicle on the date of the accident. The question is whether the said vehicle was involved in the accident or not. 8 The documents produced along with Civil Application no.3951 of 2006 make a reference to the registration of the offending vehicle as MH 10-C-2687. However, the said documents were not before the Tribunal and therefore, the respondents had no opportunity to deal with the said documents. The claim petition claiming compensation on account of a fatal accident has been dismissed. Therefore, an opportunity deserves to be granted to the appellants to lead additional evidence before the Tribunal. 9 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned Judgment and Award is quashed and set aside and the Motor Accident Claim Petition no.321 of 2001 is remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. ii)Civil Application no.3951 of 2006 is allowed. iii)It will be open for the appellants to lead additional evidence before the Tribunal by producing documents annexed to the Civil Application no.3951 of 2006 and by examining additional witnesses. iv)It is obvious that even the respondents will be entitled to adduce additional evidence. v) The claim application shall be heard and decided afresh and as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date on which writ of this Judgment is received by 4 fa297 the Tribunal. vi)All contentions of the parties including the contention regarding the involvement of the vehicle are kept open. vii)Appeal is partly allowed on above terms with no order as to costs. JUDGE