[2025:RJ-JP:19124] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2773/2009 Aziz Mohammad Mansoori S/o Shri Raju Khan Pinara, R/o Khamaura, Tehsil Shahpura, Distt. Bhilwara Raj. Driver Cum Owner Of The Truck No. Rj-09-G-2049 ----Appellant Versus 1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Through Its Regional Manager, Regional Office At Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur. Insurer Of The Truck No. Rj-09-G-2049 2. Nanga Ji S/o Shri Mangla Ji, B/c Rawat, R/o Sedariya, Post Chuchundara, P.s. Bhinay Tehsil Bhinay, Distt. Ajmer. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Ms. Shreya Khundal Mr. Yashovardhan Agarwal for Mr. L.P. Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Tomar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 06/05/2025 MANEESH SHARMA, J (ORAL): 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 13.06.2006 passed by learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT) and learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Beawar in claim petition No.860/2005, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant-respondent No.2 was allowed and an award of Rs.41,534/- has been passed against the appellant. 2. The limited question in the present appeal is qua the liability fasten upon the appellant and right to pay and recover granted to the Insurance Company due to alleged violation of policy. [2025:RJ-JP:19124] (2 of 4) [CMA-2773/2009] 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that issue No.3 was decided against the appellant merely because the appellant failed to produce the permit for the vehicle No. RJ-09-G-2049, therefore, recovery rights have been granted to the Insurance Company. 4. That in the present appeal, the appellant has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Along with the said application, the appellant has filed copy of permit in respect of goods carriers for the period 28.04.2001 to 27.04.2006, covering the date of accident, the said application under Order 41 Rule 27 has been contested by the learned counsel for the respondents by filing response, wherein it has been stated that upon verification of the copy of permit so filed by the appellant it transpires that the permit was surrendered on 13.01.2003 whereas the accident took place on 26.07.2004. In reply to the said application, the Insurance Company has not opposed the prayer for taking the permit on record rather submitted that the verification of the permit report issued by the Office of Regional Transport Authority, Chittorgarh be also taken on record in the larger interest of Justice. 5. The alleged surrender of policy is seriously disputed by the appellant. 6. From the perusal of impugned order, it reveals that the direction to pay and recover the amount has been passed by the learned MACT Court merely because copy of the permit was not produced despite granted many opportunities to the owner. 7. In the case in hand, the appellant along with the appeal filed copy of permit and the respondents have produced a verification [2025:RJ-JP:19124] (3 of 4) [CMA-2773/2009] report submitted by the Office of Regional Transport Authority, Chittorgarh reflecting surrender of permit on 13.1.2003. 8. A bare look at the documents so produced by the appellant and the respondents reveal that the aforesaid documents are very much relevant for adjudication of the controversy pending between the parties. 9. The genuineness of the documents submitted by the appellant as well as the documents submitted by the respondents are not doubtful. Since the appellant has filed the document at such a belated stage but the nature of document is very relevant for pronouncement of the judgment, therefore in the interest of Justice, the application of the appellant filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is allowed, the permit so filed by the appellant is allowed to be taken on record subject to the payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid before the Rajasthan Legal Service Authority, Jaipur within a period of four weeks from today and the document filed by the respondent- Insurance Company in rebuttal i.e. report of Regional Transport Authority, Chittorgarh pertaining to permit surrendered on 13.01.2023 is also taken on record. 10. That in view of the development mentioned herein above, the finding on the issue no-3 is hereby set-aside and while following the procedure prescribed under Order 41 Rule 28 CPC, the matter is remanded back to the learned MACT to decide issue No.3 afresh after examining the effect of the permit, so produced under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC as well as verification report so produced by the respondent. It is also clarified that the learned MACT would allow the parties to lead evidence to prove the same and it is further directed to learned MACT to conclude the [2025:RJ-JP:19124] (4 of 4) [CMA-2773/2009] proceedings of the case within a period of one year from filing certified copy of this order. 11. Accordingly the appeal is party allowed and impugned order qua issue No.3 is set-aside, the learned MACT Court is directed to re-decide the issue No.3 pertaining to fastening the liability, after considering the effect of above referred documents. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 12. That before parting with the order, it is also made clear that if the cost amount of Rs.10,000/- is not deposited by the appellant within the time granted, this order would automatically cease to operate, and appeal filed by the appellant would be treated as dismissed without further reference to this court. 13. The appeal is partly allowed in view of the directions stated herein above. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA RANI -40