JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant Shriram General Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 15.2.2014 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,12,690/- to the respondent claimant No. 1 on account of the injuries received by him in an accident. 2. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant and have gone through the impugned award. The appellant Insurance Company did not file any written statement before the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that despite opportunity, no written statement was filed by the appellant Insurance Company before the Tribunal. The witness N.A.W. 1 Avnish Kumar who was examined by the Insurance Company deposed that the driver was not having appropriate licence for driving a transport vehicle at the time of accident, However, it was noticed by the Tribunal that no positive proof was provided in support of this stand. . 3. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the 'opinion that the Tribunal committed no error in accepting the claim application filed by the respondent and holding the appellant Insurance Company, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award. 4. Mr. Kothari has filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. for taking on record the written statement at this stage. Suffice it to say that the said provision permits additional evidence to be led at appellate stage. An application for filing the written statement at the appellate stage can only be brought under Order 8 read with Section 107 C.P.C. 5. I have perused the application filed by the appellant under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. The Insurance Company participated before the Tribunal all through the claim proceedings. No application was moved by it before the Tribunal for taking on record the written statement. The application is based on a lame ground of inadvertence regarding the non filing of the written statement. Apparently inadvertence cannot be a reason to permit the pleadings to be filed at the belated stage. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Ibrahimuddin and Anr. reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148 held as below:- "26. The application is based on a lame ground of inadvertence regarding the non filing of the written statement. Apparently inadvertence cannot be a reason to permit the pleadings to be filed at the belated stage. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Ibrahimuddin and Anr. reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148 held as below:- "26. The Appellate Court should not, ordinarily allow new evidence to be adduced in order to enable a party to raise a new point in appeal. Similarly, where party on whom the onus of proving a certain point lies fails to discharge the onus, he is not entitled to a fresh opportunity to produce evidence, as the Court can, in such a case, pronounce judgment against him and does not require any additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment. [Vide: Haji Mohammed Ishaq Wd. S.K. Mohammed and Ors. v. Mohamed Iqbal and Mohamed Ali and Company, AIR 1978 SC 798 ]. 27. Under Order XL1, Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure, the Appellate Court has the power to allow a document to be produced and witness to be examined. But the requirement of the said Court must be limited to those cases where it found it necessary to obtain such evidence for enabling it to pronounce judgment. This provision does not entitle the Appellate Court to let in fresh evidence at the appellate stage where even without such evidence it can pronounce judgment in a case. It does not entitle the Appellate Court to let in fresh evidence only for the purpose of pronouncing judgment in a particular way. In other words, it is only for removing a lacuna in the empowered to admit additional evidence. [Vide: Lala Pancham and Ors. (supra)]. 28. It is not the business of the Appellate Court to supplement the evidence adduced by one party or the other in the Lower Court. Hence, in the absence of satisfactory reasons for the non-production of the evidence in the Trial Court, additional evidence should not be admitted in appeal as a party guilty of remissness in the Lower Court is not entitled to the indulgence of being allowed to give further evidence under this rule so a party who had ample opportunity to produce certain evidence in the Lower Court but failed to do so or elected not to do so, cannot have it admitted in appeal. [Vide: State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lai Srivastava, AIR 1957 SC 912 and S. Rajagopal v. C.M. Armugam and Ors., AIR 1969 SC 101 ]. 29. The inadvertence of the party or his inability to understand the legal issues involved or the wrong advice of a Pleader or the negligence of a Pleader or that the party did not realise the importance of a document does not constitute a "substantial cause" within the meaning of this rule. The mere fact that certain evidence is important, is not in itself a sufficient ground for admitting that evidence in appeal. 30. The words "for any other substantial cause" must be read with the word "requires" in the beginning of sentence, so that it is only where, for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court requires additional evidence that this rule will apply, e.g., when evidence has been taken by the Lower Court so imperfectly that the Appellate Court cannot pass a satisfactory judgment." 6. It is clear from the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the relevant portion whereof has been reproduced above that the powers under Order 41, Rule 27 can only be exercised for permitting evidence to be led at appellate stage and that too in the circumstances described in the said decision. None of the circumstances as averred by the learned Counsel for the appellant warrant the acceptance of prayer made for taking the written statement on record. Thus, the appeal being devoid of any merit is rejected the stay application also stands disposed of.Appeal dismissed. *******