JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Naresh who is respondent No.1 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (in short, the Tribunal) has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 10.03.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Tribunal, thereby dismissing application for additional evidence moved by petitioner and Lal Chand proforma respondent No.5 herein (respondent No.2 before the Tribunal). 2. Respondents No.1 to 3 herein are claimants before the Tribunal. They have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the death of Mahesh caused in motor accident. Petitioner herein was driver of the alleged offending vehicle whereas proforma respondent No.5 herein was owner thereof. Respondent No.4 herein-insurance company was impleaded as respondent No.3 in the claim petition as insurer of the aforesaid vehicle. 3. Respondents No.1 and 2 before the Tribunal closed their evidence by producing driving licence Exhibit R-1 dated 31.12.2004 of the driverrespondent No.1 (petitioner herein). Thereafter the insurance company examined official of Licensing Authority, Agra as RW-1 who brought register of driving licences for the period from 21.12.2004 till 28.12.2004 regarding issuance of licences Nos.20142 to 20522 and also produced certificate issued by the Licensing Authority that driving licence No.22504 (Exhibit R-1) in the name of petitioner herein was not issued by the said Licensing Authority. 4. In application for additional evidence, petitioner and proforma respondent No.5 herein wanted to summon the aforesaid official of the Licensing Authority with register of driving licences for 31.12.2004 to prove that driving licence Exhibit R-1 issued on 31.12.2004 is genuine. The said application has been declined by the Tribunal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that official examined by insurer as RW-1 did not bring register of driving licences pertaining to 31.12.2004 although driving licence Exhibit R-1 produced by petitioner herein is dated 31.12.2004 and therefore, it is necessary to examine the concerned official with register of driving licneces issued on 31.12.2004. There is considerable merit in the contention. The official examined by the insurer did not bring the register dated 31.12.2004 although the certificate issued by the Licensing Authority was produced that licence Exhibit R-1 had not been issued by the said Licensing Authority and the same is fake. There is considerable merit in the contention. The official examined by the insurer did not bring the register dated 31.12.2004 although the certificate issued by the Licensing Authority was produced that licence Exhibit R-1 had not been issued by the said Licensing Authority and the same is fake. Respondents No.1 and 2 before the Tribunal should have summoned the necessary record while RW-1 was being examined and cross-examined, but they failed to do so at that stage. Consequently they should be allowed to produce the proposed additional evidence on payment of cost. Obviously insurer would get opportunity to cross-examine the witness being resummoned by the petitioner and proforma respondent No.5 herein and insurer would also be at liberty to produce other evidence in rebuttal of the proposed additional evidence. The question of the driving licence Exhibit R-1 being fake or genuine is very essential to determine the liability of the insurer. Proposed additional evidence would help the Tribunal in determining the said controversy. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P-1 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. Application moved by petitioner and proforma respondent No.5 herein (respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal) for additional evidence is allowed and they are permitted to lead the proposed additional evidence, subject to payment of Rs.3,000/- as cost precedent, payable to the insurer. ----------------------