JUDGMENT Appellants/claimants filed application under section 110 A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, claiming compensation on account of death of Pakla Ram Kawat, husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellants 2,3,4 & 5. The claim petition was filed on the allegation that when Pakla Ram Kawat was going towards village Kudekala from village Chuhkimar on his bicycle a truck MKS 9115 which was driven by respondent No.1 Subhash dashed against him which has resulted in the death of Pakla Ram Kawat. The incident was reported to the police-station on 14.3.1987 p.m. The police registered an offence against the respondent No.1 under sections 279 & 304- A of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent No.1 was proceeded ex-parte. Thereafter respondent Nos. 2 & 3 filed their replies who have said to be owner and Insurance Company respectively of truck No. MKS 9115. The trial Court has not accepted their written statements and rejected the same with the further direction that the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 would file their reply afresh. However, after giving a fresh opportunity the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 failed to file their written statement and thereafter Court proceeded ex-parte against them. Applicant/appellants have examined 3 witnesses; P. W.1 Bahartinbai, P.W. 2 -Maganlal & PW 3 -- Ramkumar. It appears that unfortunately none of the witnesses examined by the applicants have stated anything about the truck involved in the accident; they have failed to give number of the vehicle involved in the accident. Further, none of the witnesses have stated as to who owned the truck; whether the truck was insured by any Insurance Company; muchless the name of the Insurance Company. Under these circumstances, the trial Court rejected the claim of the applicants. On 3.11.1992, counsel for the appellants has filed application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code for taking additional evidence in the matter. The application contends that the documents-certified copies of the order-sheets of the criminal Court and challan papers are to be taken on record. I find that no such documents are produced along with the application under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC. There is no affidavit in support of the application under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC. The application contends that the documents-certified copies of the order-sheets of the criminal Court and challan papers are to be taken on record. I find that no such documents are produced along with the application under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC. There is no affidavit in support of the application under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC. In the absence of documents it is not possible for this Court to permit the appellants to place additional evidence in exercise of powers under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC. In the absence of any material on record to show as to which truck was involved in the accident or the name of the owner or of the Insurance Company this Court is constrained to dismiss this appeal as in the absence of any material it is not possible to grant any relief to the appellants. It is really unfortunate that the matter of these poor persons is conducted in such callous and negligent manner. When the Advocates appears for needy and poor persons they should take special and particular care while conducting the matter. The conduct of the case requires efficient, vigilant and professional performance particularly in accident matters where bread earner is lost to the family and the dependents are under grave mental tension and grief.