JUDGMENT : Sukumar Chakravarty, J.—This appeal has arisen out of the award dated October 6, 1977 passed by Mr. R.C. Ghosh, the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 136 of 1973. 2. The claimant Petitioner Ashutosh Bhattacharjee filed the aforesaid M.A.C. case claiming compensation of Rs. 80,000/- . The claimant was knocked down by the lorry No. WBL 1219 at 1 p.m. on December 12, 1972 on Lower Circular Road near Moulali Crossing due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry. The claimant sustained serious injuries and was rushed to the hospital. His left foot was amputated and he became paralytic losing his power of speech and normal activities. He was aged about 40 years at the time of the accident and he used to earn Rs. 350/- to Rs. 400/- per month from his tea stall. He spent about Rs. 4,000/- for his medical treatment. The owner of the lorry was Raijnath Singh, opposite party No. 1 and the insurer was New India Assurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the insurance company'), opposite party No. 2, according to the statement in the petition for claim. 3. Opposite party No. 1, the owner of the vehicle, did not appear to oppose and contest the claim but opposite party No. 2, the insurance company, opposed the claim by filing written objection. It was contended, inter alia, that the said insurance company did not get any information of the accident involving the lorry in question from the owner and that in the absence of any particulars about the insurance of the lorry, it was not possible for the said insurance company to deal with the claimant's application. The insurance company denied other allegations of the claimant about the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and about the age and monthly income of the claimant. 4. The learned Judge of the Tribunal on consideration of the materials in the record awarded the total compensation of Rs. 26,000/- with a direction that in default of the payment of the said compensation money by 15.11.1977, the interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum would have to be paid on the compensation amount from 15.11.1977 till realisation. 5. The insurance company being dissatisfied with the aforesaid award has preferred this appeal. 26,000/- with a direction that in default of the payment of the said compensation money by 15.11.1977, the interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum would have to be paid on the compensation amount from 15.11.1977 till realisation. 5. The insurance company being dissatisfied with the aforesaid award has preferred this appeal. The Appellant insurance company filed an application along with some annexures for accepting the said annexures as additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC which, however, having not been pressed is rejected. 6. Mr. Chowdhury, appearing for the Appellant insurance company, has submitted that in spite of the objection taken by the insurance company that in the absence of the particulars it was not possible for it to deal with the case and in spite of the insurance company's evidence that it was not the insurer, the learned Judge of the Tribunal illegally and erroneously held that the insurance company was the insurer and that it was liable for the tortious act in the absence of any material on record to show that the Appellant insurance company was the insurer. In support of his such submission, Mr. Chowdhury has relied on the decision in The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Modi Narayanbhai Maganbhai Mehsana and Others, . Mr. Chowdhury has further submitted that the learned Judge has assessed the compensation and awarded the same arbitrarily without giving any reason for the same and thereby committed mistake in assessing and awarding the compensation. 7. Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the Respondent-claimant has supported the award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal in his submission and has further submitted that the appeal by the insurance company is not maintainable as the said insurance company defended the case on merit before the Tribunal by cross-examining the claimant's witnesses and in support of his such submission he has relied on the decision in Northern India General Insurance Company Ltd. v. L. Krishnan, 1972 ACJ 420 (Mysore). 8. Mr. 8. Mr. Mukherjee on behalf of the Respondent-claimant has filed one application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC for acceptance as additional evidence, one information slip dated 6.9.1974 issued by the Registering Authority, P.V. Department, Calcutta in respect of the lorry No. WBL 1219, which was lying in the record of the Tribunal and also the information slip dated 22.6.1987 issued by the aforesaid Registering Authority together with Advocate's letter dated 20th June, 1987 seeking for such information; as according to Mr. Mukherjee, those documents are required by the appellate court to enable it to pronounce judgment. It may be mentioned here that Mr. Mukherjee has not produced the letter of 1974 on the basis of which the information furnished in the information slip dated 6.9.1974 was sought for and has not prayed for acceptance of any such letter as additional piece of evidence. 9. Mr. Chowdhury has opposed the Respondent-claimant's application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC and has submitted that even if this Court be of the opinion that those documents are required to enable the court to pronounce judgment still the aforesaid documents being not the public documents or certified copies thereof but being only the information collected from the public documents, cannot be admitted in evidence without the formal proof and accordingly the case should be sent back on remand to the Tribunal for acceptance of such documents according to law and for giving opportunity to the insurance company to adduce further evidence on such fresh additional evidence, if the court is of the opinion that such additional evidence is required to enable the court to pronounce judgment. Mr. Chowdhury has further submitted that the Tribunal, after acceptance of such documents in evidence, will be required to see whether the information about the number of insurance certificate and the name of the insurer as mentioned in the information slip dated 6.9.1974, which under the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules thereunder was not required to be kept in the records maintained by the Registering Authority of the P.V. Department but supplied by the said authority, can have any legal value; and for this purpose also remand of the case is necessary. Mr. Mr. Chowdhury has further submitted that the arbitrary assessment of compensation without assigning any reason showing the basis thereof, by the learned Tribunal also deserves the merit of remand of the case for proper adjudication. 10. To such submission of Mr. Chowdhury, Mr. Mukherjee has submitted that all such submissions of Mr. Chowdhury have no value to be considered when the appeal is not maintainable. 11. In the case reported in Northern India General Ins. Company Ltd. v. L. Krishnan 1972 ACJ 420 (Mys) as referred to by Mr. Mukherjee the appeal was filed by the insurer of the lorry in question which caused the death of the victim, against the judgment of the M.A.C. Tribunal and nekher the owner nor the driver presented any appeal, although they contested the claim before the Tribunal by filing written statement. In a case of this nature, as mentioned in the aforesaid case, the Mysore High Court while discussing the scope of the defence to be taken by the insurer u/s 96(2) read with Section 110-C (2-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, has held that the only defences which the insurer could urge before the Tribunal and which it can urge in the appeal are those as specified in Clauses (a) to (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and that the provisions of Sub-section (2-A) of Section 110-C of the Motor Vehicles Act would not be attracted in this case to enable the insurer to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made as the condition of collusion between the claimant and the owner of the vehicle as mentioned in clause (i) or the condition of failure on the part of the owner of the vehicle to contest as mentioned in Clause (ii) to Sub-section (2-A) of Section 110-C of the Motor Vehicles Act was found to be absent in this case. 12. 12. In the instant case, the owner of the vehicle did not file any written statement and failed to contest the claim and the insurance company urged before the Tribunal all the defences which the insured could urge including the defence that in the absence of the particulars of the insurance policy, it was not possible for it to deal with the claim and that the insurance company might not be the insurer. 13. DW 1, Kutnud Kr. Sett, an employee of the Motor Claims Department of the insurance company, has stated in his evidence that the lorry No. WBL 1219 was not insured with the insurance company. His evidence further shows that the letter written to the owner of the vehicle as per the claim petition was returned with the remark 'left' and that in spite of the checking of several registers, the lorry No. WBL 1219 could not be traced. The decision in the case reported in The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Modi Narayanbhai Maganbhai Mehsana and Others, as referred to by Mr. Chowdhury rather indicates that the defence of insurance company's inability to trace its records regarding the insurance of the vehicle in question for want of necessary information can be urged by the insurance company to avoid its liability. Insurance company as Appellant in this appeal, therefore, can urge all the defences including the negligence of the driver of the vehicle, the quantum of compensation and also the defence whether the insurance, company was the insurer of the vehicle in question. The submission of Mr. Mukherjee that as the insurance company has cross-examined the claimant's witnesses on merit, the insurance company cannot urge the defence whether it is the insurer, is not tenable. The appeal therefore is found to be maintainable. 14. Mr. Chowdhury has not challenged the finding of rash and negligent driving of the lorry in question which caused the injury to the claimant Mr. Chowdhury has, however, disputed the arbitrary manner of assessing the compensation by the Tribunal without assigning any reason in support of such assessment by due discussion of the materials in the record. Mr. Chowdhury has no doubt mainly challenged the liability of the insurance company in the absence of any evidence to the effect that the insurance company was the insurer of the lorry in question. 15. Mr. Chowdhury has no doubt mainly challenged the liability of the insurance company in the absence of any evidence to the effect that the insurance company was the insurer of the lorry in question. 15. Section 98 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with the duty of the owner of the vehicle to give information as to insurance on claimant's demand. There is no evidence either oral or documentary to show that the claimant or any person on his behalf made any demand to the owner of the vehicle to give information as to insurance. It appears from the Respondent-claimant's petition under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC that the claimant's advocate obtained one information slip dated 6.9.1974 from Registering Authority, P.V. Department containing therein, amongst others, the name of the insurance company and the number of the insurance certificate and another information slip dated 22.6.1987 containing some information regarding the lorry No. WBL 1219 and its owner but not containing any information about the insurance company and the number of the insurance certificate on demand by the claimant's advocate through a letter. By the said application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Respondent-claimant urges this Court to accept those documents as additional evidence. The information in the information slips dated 6.9.1974 and dated 22.6.1987 if found to be true and legally obtained will be required by the court to pronounce judgment on relevant issue. We are of the view that those documents as mentioned in the application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC should be accepted as additional evidence on their formal proof. This can be best done by the Tribunal on giving opportunity to the claimant to get those documents admitted in evidence on their formal proof according to law and giving opportunity also to the opposite party, insurance company, to give counter evidence, if any. To achieve that purpose for proper adjudication, the remand of the case is absolutely necessary although we are quite conscious of the fact that the claim case is pending final disposal since its institution in 1973. 16. On perusal of the impugned judgment we agree to the views of Mr. Chowdhury that the Tribunal has assessed the compensation in arbitrary manner without giving any reason in support of the same on due consideration of the materials in the record. 16. On perusal of the impugned judgment we agree to the views of Mr. Chowdhury that the Tribunal has assessed the compensation in arbitrary manner without giving any reason in support of the same on due consideration of the materials in the record. So for proper assessment of the compensation based on reasons, the remand of the case is also necessary. It is true that this appellate court could have assessed the compensation on the materials in the record if the remand would not have been necessary on the point of admission of the additional evidence as already indicated. 17. As the remand is a 'must' in the instant case, in view of what has been stated above we refrain ourselves from expressing any opinion on the merit of the case with regard to the question whether the insurance company was the insurer of the lorry in question and also with regard to the quantum of compensation to be assessed in this case. We, however, confirm the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry in question which caused the injury to the victim and after remand this will not be reopened before the Tribunal while giving decision on other relevant issues. 18. With the above observation we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and award of the Tribunal without disturbing the Tribunal's finding about the rash and negligent driving of the lorry in question causing the injury to the claimant and send back the case on remand for fresh decision according to law in the light of the observations and directions in the judgment after accepting the documents as mentioned in the application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC filed in this Court as additional evidence on their formal proof according to law and after giving further opportunity to the claimant to give any other fresh evidence showing the insurance company as the insurer of the lorry in question and not on any other point and giving opportunity to the insurance company as well to give counter evidence if any in this respect only and not on any other matter. The Tribunal shall take all possible steps for disposal of the case within two months from the receipt of the record and the copy of the judgment. 19. We make no order as to costs. The Tribunal shall take all possible steps for disposal of the case within two months from the receipt of the record and the copy of the judgment. 19. We make no order as to costs. Preparation of formal decree be dispensed with. The records be sent immediately. Gobinda Chandra Chatterjee, J. 20. I agree.