JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. 1. These are the two first appeal from orders involving the same facts and circumstances arising out of the same accident, hence they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. Heard Mr. Ved Prakash, learned counsel for appellant and perused the record. 2. These first appeal from orders arise out of the judgment and award dated 24.4.2013 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 97 of 2006, Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal and others v. Zubair Alam and others, as well as judgment and award dated 24.4.2013 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 109 of 2007. Ram Dev Jaiswal and another v. Zubair Alam and others, whereby the claims have allowed against the appellant-insurance company and a sum of  Rs. 3,21,500 and  Rs. 1,52,000, respectively have been awarded as compensation to the claimants. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly come to conclusion that the vehicle involved in the accident i.e. Truck No. U.G.M.-666 was plying with valid permit and fitness certificate. 4. It is submitted that on inquiry the appellant has come to know that the certificate issued by Tax Officer. Faizabad is only road tax and fitness certificate, it cannot be treated as a permit to ply the vehicle on route Gonda-Faizabad road on which the vehicle was plying at the time of said accident. 5. Submission is that the appellant could not bring the aforesaid fact before the learned Tribunal as they have been informed by the concerning office only after the award was pronounced. He may be permitted to move application under Order XLI, Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure to bring this additional evidence before this Court. The request of appellant's counsel would be considered at the appropriate time. 6. The question involved in both the appeals is trivial in nature, as such, I hereby propose to decide the appeals at the admission stage itself. 7. It is the admitted case of the appellant that the accident dated 30.3.1992 involving vehicle truck (U.G.M.-666) which was coming from Faizabad and going to Gonda had taken place in which deceased Shiv Kumar Jaiswal as well as Bajrangi and several other persons had suffered injuries due to which Shiv Kumar Jaiswal and Bajrangi had died. 8. 7. It is the admitted case of the appellant that the accident dated 30.3.1992 involving vehicle truck (U.G.M.-666) which was coming from Faizabad and going to Gonda had taken place in which deceased Shiv Kumar Jaiswal as well as Bajrangi and several other persons had suffered injuries due to which Shiv Kumar Jaiswal and Bajrangi had died. 8. It is also admitted that the said vehicle was driven by driver Munna s/o Shakir r/o mohalla Chandpur, P.S. Kotwali Nagar Bahraich, Tehsil and District Bahraich who was having valid driving licence. 9. The learned Tribunal while deciding the aforesaid claims had framed certain issues including the issue No. 4 in both the claims with respect to fitness certificate and road permit which on reproduction reads as under: 10. The learned Tribunal in its conclusions on the aforesaid issue has held that the burden to prove the aforesaid issue was on the owner of the vehicle (defendant Nos. 1 and 2 before the Tribunal). The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have produced certificate of Tax Officer, Faizabad certifying the road tax and fitness of vehicle No. U.G.M.-666, according to which the fitness certificate was for the period 4.2.1992 to 3.2.1993 and the road tax was deposited up to 31.12.1992. The said documents were not disputed by the insurance company. The learned Tribunal accepting the said documents has come to conclusion that the vehicle involved in the accident was having valid fitness certificate and the road tax was duly deposited, therefore, it was plying as per rules. 11. It is to be observed that in case the appellant had raised a plea that the vehicle involved in the accident was plying in violation of terms and conditions of the policy, then the burden was on the insurance company to have proved the same. The insurance company had failed to establish before the learned Tribunal that the vehicle was plying in violation of terms and conditions of the policy hence not liable to pay compensation. 12. The insurance company had failed to establish before the learned Tribunal that the vehicle was plying in violation of terms and conditions of the policy hence not liable to pay compensation. 12. Even in case the contention of learned counsel for appellant is accepted that subsequently on inquiry it has come to their knowledge that the certificate produced by owners of the vehicle, which has been relied by the learned Tribunal while deciding the issue No. 4, is not a permit and the learned Tribunal has not property considered the issue, learned counsel for appellant has not produced any document before this Court to substantiate that the vehicle involved in the accident was not having valid permit. He has failed to establish before this Court that the vehicle involved in the accident was plying without having valid permit. 13. There is nothing on record to indicate that the vehicle involved in the accident was not having valid permit to ply on Faizabad-Gonda road. 14. In case the appellant wants to say that the vehicle involved in the accident was not plying with valid permit and had violated the conditions of insurance policy, then the burden is on the appellant to prove the same. Simply because the certificate issued by the Tax Officer, Faizabad produced by the owners of the vehicle before the learned Tribunal could not be treated to be a permit, it does not mean that the vehicle involved in the accident was not having valid permit. 15. It is also to be noted that the learned Tribunal had framed a specific issue as to whether the Vehicle No. U.G.M.-666 was plying in violation of Insurance policy. In this regard, the learned Tribunal in its finding has observed that it is the specific case of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (owners of the vehicle) that the vehicle involved in the accident was having valid insurance policy and was being driven as per terms and conditions of the said policy. The insurance company has not produced any evidence to contradict the aforesaid contention of the owners of the vehicle nor has disputed the same as such it can easily be concluded that the vehicle was plying at the time of accident as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 16. The insurance company has not produced any evidence to contradict the aforesaid contention of the owners of the vehicle nor has disputed the same as such it can easily be concluded that the vehicle was plying at the time of accident as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 16. The request of learned counsel for appellant for permission to move application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code to produce additional evidence to the effect that the certificate issued by the Tax Officer, Faizabad was only regarding Road Tax and Fitness Certificate and cannot be treated as permit is refused as in view of the observation made above it would not, in any manner, improve the case of the appellant. 17. Learned counsel for appellant also submitted that in the first information report and the charge-sheet filed by the police it has come that one Jeep bearing No. H.P.S.-3933 driven by driver Ram Nath and Cleaner Ram Bhajan had suddenly stopped in front of the truck (U.G.M.-666) and started pelting stones due to which the driver Munna of truck had lost his balance, hence the accident had taken place due to contributory negligence of the jeep driver as well as truck driver. 18. It is to be noted that learned Tribunal had framed issue No. 6 in this regard and while deciding the said issue has come to conclusion that the above accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck driver (U.G.M.-666) and not because of negligence of jeep driver. 19. 18. It is to be noted that learned Tribunal had framed issue No. 6 in this regard and while deciding the said issue has come to conclusion that the above accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck driver (U.G.M.-666) and not because of negligence of jeep driver. 19. Even as per first information report, the jeep while coming from Faizabad and going to Gonda crossed the truck and thereafter stopped due to which the driver of truck had to turn the vehicle towards left and crushed several shops and injured several persons in which deceased Shiv Kumar Jaiswal and Bajrangi had died on spot due to the crushing by the truck, as such, it can easily be concluded that the aforesaid jeep was not involved in the accident and it was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck that the said accident had taken place as the driver of the truck in stead of stopping the vehicle had turned it towards shops on the road and crushed several shops and deceased Shiv Kumar Jaiswal and Bajrangi and injuring several other persons as has been observed by the learned Tribunal as such it cannot be said to be a case of contributory negligence. 20. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity or illegality in the judgments and award under challenge. 21. As such, I do not find any ground in appeals worth admission. Thus, the appeals are dismissed at the admission stage. 22. The judgments and award are hereby confirmed. The appellant is liable to pay the amount of compensation as per impugned judgments and award of the learned Tribunal. The statutory amount deposited at the time of filing of the appeals shall be remitted back to the learned Tribunal forthwith.