JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. :- Appellant has challenged the Award dated 4.3.1995 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla in M.A.C. Petition No.8-S/2 of 1991. By means of impugned award compensation in the sum of Rs. 1, 58,302.00 has been awarded against the appellant-Insurance company. This amount has been held to be inclusive of amount if any deposited or paid under no fault liability. This amount has also been made payable with 12% interest on the date of petition i.e. 4.3.1995 till realisation. 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal need to be briefly referred to. A claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by respondent No.l Bidhi Chand. As according o him he sustained injuries while working as Cleaner/conductor on truck bearing registration No.HPN-358. On 5.9.1990 around 4.15 P.M. this truck was on its way from Chopal to Nerwa. Because of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver, it rolled down the khud near Tikker Nala (Chopal). He sustained injuries as a result of which he was permanently disabled to the extent of 40%, thus compensation in the sum of Rs.3,50,000/- was claimed. Respondent driver admitted the factum of accident as also respondent No.l Bidhi Chand being employed as a conductor on truck No.HPN-358 at the time of accident. Cause of accident was set up as sudden mechanical defect in the vehicle. Liability was denied being excessive. The further pleaded that monthly wages of Bidhi Chand was Rs.800/-. 3. Appellant-Insurance Company besides disputing the liability on other grounds raised preliminary objection No.l wherein it was specifically pleaded that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence, as such it is not liable to pay any compensation. This reply was filed on 3.5.1992. 4. Evidence of the appellant was closed as per statement made on its behalf on 4.3.1995 after tendering a copy of the policy Ex.RX. Thereafter award has been passed on that date. 5. Mr. Ravi Bakshi, learned counsel for the appellant raised only one plea that his client has not been afforded a reasonable, just and adequate opportunity to lead evidence in this case. With a view to prove that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence as such his client cannot be held liable for payment of ay compensation. 5. Mr. Ravi Bakshi, learned counsel for the appellant raised only one plea that his client has not been afforded a reasonable, just and adequate opportunity to lead evidence in this case. With a view to prove that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence as such his client cannot be held liable for payment of ay compensation. In this behalf it may be noted that following issues were framed as far back as on 8.1.1993: 1. Whether claimant Bidhi Chand sustained injuries on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No.l, in an accident which took place on 5.9.1990 near Tikkri Nalla, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether respondent No.l was not having a valid driving licence at the relevant time, as alleged? OPR 3 3. If issue No. 1 is proved in the affirmative to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP 4. Relief. 6. When a reference is made to the issue, appellant was well aware that issue No.2 is based on its pleadings as contained in preliminary objection No. 1. Admittedly, after framing of issues and till statement was made after tendering copy of the policy in evidence on behalf of the appellant, no steps had been taken to summon the evidence. Neither any list of witnesses nor process fee and diet money or any other steps was taken so as to summon any of the witnesses. 7. Here another fact of the case needs to be heard. Along with the appeal CMP No.373 of 1995 has been filed. Brevity is its essence. For ready reference this application is extracted here-in-below: " 1. That the applicant has filed an appeal against the impugned award dated 4.3.1995 the grounds of which may be read as part of the application. 2. That investigation made by the Company show that the driving. licence produced by the insured driver was lake. The Insurance Company could not lead evidence to prove its defence because of denial of reasonable opportunity by the trial court as compared to the opportunities allowed to the claimants to lead their evidence. The company has also not led evidence because it took time to ascertain the exact facts from the office of the Licencing Authority, Courtdwara. 3. The Insurance Company could not lead evidence to prove its defence because of denial of reasonable opportunity by the trial court as compared to the opportunities allowed to the claimants to lead their evidence. The company has also not led evidence because it took time to ascertain the exact facts from the office of the Licencing Authority, Courtdwara. 3. That the evidence to prove that the driving licence of the driver was fake one could not be led despite best efforts though the company had been acting with due diligence on its part. 4. That in the circumstances of the case, the Insurance company deserves to be permitted to lead evidence in support of its defence by examining the concerned official from the office of Licencing Authority Courtdwara, in appeal." 8. In this behalf provision of Order 41 Rule 27 also needs to be noted. In the admitted facts and circumstances as enumerated here-in-above, it cannot be said that the appellant was not aware regarding licence of driver being either fake or not genuine. It also cannot be sad that any attempt was made to lead such evidence, but trial court declined and lastly in the circumstances existing on the file, we feel that we do not require such an evidence for deciding this appeal. These are the only grounds under which a party can be permitted to lead or avail benefit of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. It may also be observed that this provision of law is not meant to fill in lacunae left in its case during the course of trial before the Tribunal below. As a limb of the welfare state, appellant and its functionaries entrusted to prosecute the litigation on its behalf are expected to be more careful and vigilant so that neither the public money is waster nor rightful claims are denied. We leave the matter here for the authorities of the appellant to see how to deal with this matter without saying anything further. In fact the moment plea was put up by the appellant in its written statement, it can safely be presumed that it was well aware regarding fackness of the licence of the driver of the truck in question. There is nothing on record why evidence has not been summoned. In fact the moment plea was put up by the appellant in its written statement, it can safely be presumed that it was well aware regarding fackness of the licence of the driver of the truck in question. There is nothing on record why evidence has not been summoned. When Insurance Company took up a particular defence and failed to establish how the court has to proceed; the matter is no more resintegra Reliance can be placed in this behalf on the observations of the Supreme Court in case Narchinva v. Kamat & Anr. etc. v. Alfredo Antonia Doe Martins & Ors. AIR 1985 SC 1281 as held in para 15: "15. To sum up the insurance company failed to prove that there was a breach of the term of the contract of insurance as evidenced by the policy of insurance on the ground that the driver who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time did not have a valid driving licence. Once the insurance company failed to prove that aspect, its liability under the contract of insurance remains intact and unhampered and it was bound to satisfy the award under the comprehensive policy of ins." 9. When a party like appellant in the present case closes its evidence by making a statement, then it cannot be allowed to make a prayer for being allowed to lead additional evidence as in the present case. This is what was held by Division Bench of this Court speaking through one of us (Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.) in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sukha Devi & Ors. 1995 ACJ 796. Relevant paragraph from this judgment is extracted herein below : "23. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the opinion that the insurance company had failed to produce the permit before the Tribunal during the trial of the claim petitions. It had voluntarily closed its evidence without producing the witness or the copy of the permit from the office of the Regional Transport Authority, De-hradun. The applicant cannot be permitted to lead (he evidence at (his belated stage especially when the company has been held liable to idemnify the insured for the payment of the compensation. The applicant remained negligent in not examining its witnesses during the trial of the claim petitions. Therefore, these applications are dismissed." 10. The applicant cannot be permitted to lead (he evidence at (his belated stage especially when the company has been held liable to idemnify the insured for the payment of the compensation. The applicant remained negligent in not examining its witnesses during the trial of the claim petitions. Therefore, these applications are dismissed." 10. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for referring the matter to the larger bench. As according to him decision in this case needs reconsideration. This is a plea raised simply to be rejected. Reason being in view of the decision of the Division Bench how his plea needs reconsideration could not be explained by Mr. Bakshi as he was not able to persuade this court by giving any cogent ground. In this behalf we may point out that in the peculiar facts as well as stand of the appellant in its preliminary objection No. 1 supra, it ought to have filed list of witnesses in accordance with law. It is not the case of the appellant that it made any attempt before the trial court to produce evidence with a view to support such plea. 11. That being so, plea that adequate opportunity was not allowed is liable to be rejected in the face of the decision of this court referred to here-in-above as well as appellant having miserably failed to lead evidence. In case appellant was not aware when preliminary objection No. 1 was taken as noted here-in-above, then such plea raised was factually incorrect and had no basis on which it being raised. So on this count also appellant must fail. 12. No other grounds raised in support of this case. 13. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.2000/-. In terms of the affidavit filed by the Divisional Manager of the Appellant Company a sum of Rs.63849/- has been deposited in excess, the said amount is ordered to be refunded to the Insurance Company at its Shimla Divisional Office. The Registry is directed to remit the same in its bank account, number whereof will be furnished by the appellant within one week. Affidavit filed by Mrs. Nupur Nadda, Divisional Manager of the Appellant company is ordered to be taken on record and the explanation furnished therein is also accepted. The Registry is directed to remit the same in its bank account, number whereof will be furnished by the appellant within one week. Affidavit filed by Mrs. Nupur Nadda, Divisional Manager of the Appellant company is ordered to be taken on record and the explanation furnished therein is also accepted. Appeal stands finally disposed of in these terms. -