Shri Anchal Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Eye witness P.W.-2 had stated that he reached the spot after the accident after hearing the noise, therefore he had not seen the accident and could not prove the rash and negligent driving of the diver of the Motor Cycle. He further submitted that the D.W.1, who was driving the motor cycle has stated that two cars were coming from the opposite direction and while overtaking the accident had occurred, therefore the accident had occurred by the Car but the number of the offending vehicle has not been given and the compensation has been claimed from the owner and insurance Company of the Motor Cycle, wheres rash and negligent driving of the driver of motorcycle has not been proved. He further submitted that there were only three claimants but the consortium has been awarded for four claimants. He further submitted that the age of the deceased has been determined as 50 years in the impugned judgment and award but no proof of age was filed before the Tribunal. After the impugned judgment and award dated 28.10.2023, when the required documents such as Pan Card etc. of the deceased were submitted by the claimant/respondents it came to light that his age was more than 55 years, whereas the multiplayer of age of 40-50 has been applied, which could not have been applied. Thus the appellant has also filed the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for taking additional evidence on record. The said application has been registered as C.M.Application No.2 of 2024.
