Order This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 2.9.95 by which Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal has allowed Rs. 15,000/- as compensation to the respondents. 2. The daughter of the claimants-respondents was knocked down by a bus bearing no. BRG 6777 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus on 7.2.86. The claimants- O.Ps. filed a claim case before the Tribunal claiming only Rs. 15.000/- as compensation for the death of his daughter. Before the Tribunal, the owner said that vehicle in question was insured at the relevant time with the National Insurance Corporation. 3. The Tribunal after considering the materials on the record found the death of the daughter of the claimants was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and has awarded the aforesaid amount against the owner and the insurance company. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the vehicle in question was covered by a comprehensive insurance policy, as such the insurance company alone is liable to pay the compensation and not the owner-appellants. An application under Order 41 rule 27, C.P.C. has also been filed for taking into evidence the insurance certificate as additional evidence. 5. It appears that before the Tribunal no document was filed on behalf of the owner, showing that the vehicle in question was covered by the insurance policy. The claim case was filed in 1986 and it remained pending till the date of disposal in 1995. No effort was made to file the insurance policy or certificate to show that it was covered by an insurance policy. In that view of the matter the prayer made by the appellants to accept the insurance certificate as additional evidence is fit to be rejected. In my view, once the claim for additional evidence is rejected, the finding of the tribunal based on the material evidence cannot be said to be suffering from any legal infirmity. 6. In the result there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.