F.A.O. No.5190 of 2006 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No.5190 of 2006 (O&M) Decided on : 26-11-2009 United India Insurance Company Limited .... Appellant VERSUS Rashmi Dhir & others .... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. Present:- Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate, and Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. H.S. Sawhney, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3 & 4. None for respondent Nos.5 & 6. RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (Oral). This is insurer's appeal, challenging the impugned award dated 5.9.2006, whereby the respondents-claimants have been awarded compensation on account of death of one Mr. Arvind Kumar caused due to rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing No.PB-10T-9533, as per the certified copy of impugned award. F.A.O. No.5190 of 2006 (O&M) -2- The only argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant before this Court is that issue No.1 with regard to involvement of bus in question, has been decided erroneously as the accident has taken place with Bus No.PB-10F-9333 and not with bus No.PB-10T-9533, and the appellant could not lead any evidence in this regard as the aforesaid fact came to their knowledge after passing of the Award. Learned counsel has further submitted that because of this fact, the appellant has also moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, for leading additional evidence along with this appeal. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid documents, which are sought to be proved by way of additional evidence, the findings of the Tribunal on issue No.1, cannot be sustained. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. However, from the impugned award, I find that no such plea was taken by the appellant-Insurance Company in its pleadings and therefore, application for leading additional evidence at this stage for the facts, which are not pleaded, cannot be allowed. Moreover, despite the fact that the appellant has taken a preliminary objection and was given permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to take all the defences/grounds to contest the claim and a specific issue i.e. issue No.5 was framed, which reads as under:- “Whether the claimants have filed the petition in collusion with respondent Nos.1 & 2? OPR-3” F.A.O. No.5190 of 2006 (O&M) -3- Yet, no evidence was lead on this issue and the aforesaid issue was decided against the appellant. In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned award of the Tribunal. Dismissed. 26th November, 2009. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) monika JUDGE