JUDGMENT S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.—These two appeals are directed against the judgment and award in MVC No. 1716/2006 dated 17.5.2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore. 2. Nagaraju N., the appellant in MFA No. 12258/2007 was the claimant before the Tribunal. The Managing Director of Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (‘Corporation’ for short), the respondent in the said appeal was the owner of the offending vehicle. 3. Nagaraju N. filed the aforesaid claim petition seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs from the Corporation on account of the injury said to have been sustained by him in the accident occurred on 25.12.2005. It is the case of the claimant that on 25.12.2005 at about 8.00 a.m. he was travelling in the bus bearing No. KA 01 F 1710 belonging to the Corporation. He was sitting at hind portion of the bus. The bus was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. When the bus came near Kanteeravana Stadium, the driver of the bus suddenly applied break resulting in the claimant and other co-passengers falling down from their seats. The claimant was hit by a rod, on account of which he sustained the following grievous injuries: “(i) Compression fracture of first lumber vertibra; (ii) Other multiple injuries all over his body.” With the help of co-passengers, who were also from his village, he came back to his house and took treatment in his village. Later, he took treatment at ESI Hospital, Indiranagar. Thereafter, he took treatment from Vydehi Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre, White Field Road, Bangalore. He was admitted as an inpatient in the hospital from 26.1.2006 to 13.3.2006. He had undergone an operation for spinal stabilisation. He was the sole breadwinner of the family. He has spent a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- towards medical treatment, nourishing food, conveyance and attendant charges. It is contended that he was earning Rs. 7,000/- per month. He has claimed a compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs. 4. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the Corporation has entered appearance and filed its objections contending that the bus in question was not driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver as contended by the claimant in the claim petition. The Corporation has denied all the other allegations made in the claim petition. 5. 4. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the Corporation has entered appearance and filed its objections contending that the bus in question was not driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver as contended by the claimant in the claim petition. The Corporation has denied all the other allegations made in the claim petition. 5. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: (i) Whether petitioner proves that he sustained grievous injuries in RTA occurred on 25.12.2005 at about 8.00 a.m. On RRMR road in front of Kanteeravana Stadium front gate, on account of actionable negligent driving of the driver of BMTC bus bearing No. KA 01 F 1710? (ii) Whether petitioner is entitled to claim compensation from the respondents? (iii) What order or award? 6. The claimant got himself examined as P.W. 1. The documents Ex. P1 to Ex. P10 have been marked in his evidence. The Doctor, who had treated the claimant was examined as P.W. 2 and Ex. P11 and Ex. P12 have been marked in his evidence. The driver of the bus was examined as R.W. 1. On appreciation of the material on record, the Tribunal has held that the claimant had suffered grievous injuries on account of the accident occurred on 25.12.2005 while he was travelling in the bus belonging to the Corporation bearing No. KA 01 F 1710. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 69,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of its deposit. 7. The Corporation has filed the appeal MFA No. 10153/2007 challenging the said judgment and award contending that the bus in question has not met with an accident as contended by the claimant. The claimant has filed MFA No. 12258/2007 seeking enhancement of compensation. 8. Sri D. Vijayakumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation contends that the Tribunal was not right in holding that the bus in question had met with an accident. It is argued that neither the bus has met with an accident nor the claimant was travelling in the bus on the aforesaid date. It is further contended that the claimant has not produced any material to show that he was travelling in the bus. It is argued that neither the bus has met with an accident nor the claimant was travelling in the bus on the aforesaid date. It is further contended that the claimant has not produced any material to show that he was travelling in the bus. He has not even examined the co-passengers said to be from his village, who have helped him when he sustained injuries in the accident. It is further argued that the complaint was lodged after 45 days from the date of the alleged accident. No explanation has been offered for the delay in lodging the complaint. 9. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the claimant has filed an application-Misc. Civil No. 15279/2010 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission of this Court to produce additional documents. The additional documents are the prescription issued by Shakthi Krupa Poly Clinic and the medical record maintained by the ESI Hospital. It is further contended that immediately after the accident, he has taken treatment from a Polyclinic in his village. As the pain increased, he took treatment from Vydehi Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre, White Field Road, Bangalore. The documents produced along with the application and other materials produced in the evidence would clearly indicate that the claimant was travelling in the bus on 25.12.2005 at 8.00 a.m. It is also clear that he had sustained injuries on account of the driver of the bus applying break suddenly when the bus came near Kanteeravana Stadium. It is argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on a lower side. It is further argued that the Tribunal ought to have awarded suitable compensation towards loss of future income, pain and suffering, loss of amenities and medical and other incidental expenses. 10. Having regard to the contentions urged, the points for consideration in these appeals are: (i) Whether the application Misc. Civil No. 15279/2010 filed by the claimant in MFA No. 12258/2007 under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC requires to be allowed? (ii) Whether the claimant has established that the bus in question had met with an accident on account of which he had sustained injuries? (iii) Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation? Reg. Point No.(i): 11. (ii) Whether the claimant has established that the bus in question had met with an accident on account of which he had sustained injuries? (iii) Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation? Reg. Point No.(i): 11. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the claimant has stated that he had taken treatment in a polyclinic at his native place immediately after the accident. Subsequently, he took treatment from ESI Hospital at Indiranagar. At the time of filing of the claim petition, he had not produced the documents enclosed alongwith the application. Though the documents were in his custody, he thought it fit not to produce the same as they are not necessary to establish his case. Learned Counsel for the Corporation has opposed the said application. 12. The claim petition was filed on 21.3.2006. The matter was disposed of by the Tribunal on 17.5.2007. The claimant has filed the appeal on 28.9.2007 and the application seeking production of additional documents was filed on 7.9.2010. In the first document produced alongwith the application, the date has not been properly mentioned. The date is shown as 25.12. The second document is dated 13.1.2008. Both are the xerox copies of the documents. Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down the procedure for production of additional document in the appellate Court. It states that the parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the appellate Court. But if the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or the appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. 13. It is not the case of the appellant that the Tribunal has refused to admit the evidence, which ought to have been admitted during the trial of the case. 13. It is not the case of the appellant that the Tribunal has refused to admit the evidence, which ought to have been admitted during the trial of the case. It is also not the case of the appellant that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the award appealed against was passed. The only reasons assigned was that though the documents were in his custody, he thought that the same are not necessary at the time of filing of the claim petition. The claimant has not produced the originals of the said documents. In my view, the claimant has not made out a case for production of the additional documents at this belated stage. Consequently, Misc. Civil No. 15279/2010 is rejected. Point No. (i) is answered accordingly. Reg. Point No. (ii): 14. It is the specific case of the claimant that on 25.12.2005 at about 8.00 a.m., when he was driving in a BMTC bus bearing KA 01 F 1710, he was sitting at hind portion of the bus. He was going to the City Market at Bangalore. When the said bus reached RRMR Road in front of Kanteeravana Stadium entrance, the driver of the bus, while driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner had suddenly applied break, on account of which claimant fell down from the seat. He was hit by a rod and sustained injuries. The Corporation has filed the statement of objections denying that the bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner. It is further contended that the claimant has not met with the accident as alleged in the petition. Therefore, question of sustaining the injury on account of the alleged accident does not arise. The allegations have been made with ulterior motive to grab compensation from the Corporation. The claimant has filed his affidavit of evidence. In his examination in chief, he has reiterated what has been stated in the claim petition. In the cross-examination, he has stated as under: “I have not produced any document to show that I travelled by bus. I was going from Kaggadasapura to City Market. I have handed over the ticket to police. In his examination in chief, he has reiterated what has been stated in the claim petition. In the cross-examination, he has stated as under: “I have not produced any document to show that I travelled by bus. I was going from Kaggadasapura to City Market. I have handed over the ticket to police. To that effect, I have not produced any document.” The claimant has not even examined the Doctor, who had treated him at his village immediately after the accident or the Doctor, who had treated him at ESI Hospital. Dr. A. Ramalingaiah was examined as P.W. 2. According to P.W. 2, he had examined the claimant on 19.2.2007. The Driver was examined as R.W. 1. In his evidence, he has stated that he was driving the bus from Kaggadasapura to City Market. He left Kaggadasapura at 8.00 a.m. and reached market at 8.45 a.m. as scheduled. No accident had occurred in between the route. He has further stated that the case has been foisted against the Corporation to grab the compensation. The police had also called him in this regard. He has denied before the police that the accident had occurred. The ticket shown by the police was not issued by the conductor of the bus. Admittedly, the complaint is filed by the claimant after 45 days from the date of the accident. No explanation has been offered for the long delay of 45 days in lodging the complaint. The claimant has not produced any materials to show that he was travelling in the offending bus on 25.12.2005 or that the accident had occurred while he was travelling in the bus when the bus reached Kanteeravana Sadium. The Tribunal has passed a cryptic order without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record. I am of the view that the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 is totally unsustainable in law. Point No. (ii) is answered accordingly. Reg. Point No. (iii): 15. Having regard to the finding on point No. (ii), question of enhancement of compensation does not arise. On the other hand, the claimant is not entitled for any compensation as he has failed to establish that he was travelling in the offending bus on 25.12.2005 or that he had met with an accident. 16. Reg. Point No. (iii): 15. Having regard to the finding on point No. (ii), question of enhancement of compensation does not arise. On the other hand, the claimant is not entitled for any compensation as he has failed to establish that he was travelling in the offending bus on 25.12.2005 or that he had met with an accident. 16. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal filed by the Corporation in MFA No. 10153/2007 is hereby allowed. The judgment and award in MVC No. 1716/2006 dated 17.5.2007 is hereby set aside. The claim petition in MVC No. 1716/2006 is dismissed. (ii) The appeal filed by the claimant in MFA No. 12258/2007 is hereby rejected. (iii) The amount in deposit in MFA No. 10153/2007 shall be returned to the appellant-Corporation. No costs.