JUDGMENT Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.—These two FAFOs arising out of a single accident which took place on 8.3.1999, have been filed against the common award dated 17.3.2007 rendered in Motor Accident Case No. 249 of 1999 filed by one Ashok Kumar (injured) and Smt. Rama Devi and others, who were the legal representatives of the deceased Jagat Narain. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, while allowing the claim petitions, has granted recovery rights in favour of the insurance company and for coming to such a conclusion, issues were drawn with respect to the validity of insurance policy and the validity of driving licence as issue No. 2 and 3. The aforesaid two appeals filed by the owner before this Court raise a dispute with respect to the aforesaid two issues and no other issue was either argued or falls for consideration. 2. The recovery rights have been given to the insurer against the owner of the offending vehicle in both the cases arising out of injury as well as death. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that once there was a valid insurance policy operating as on the date of accident, documents in relation whereof were duly produced before the Tribunal, there was no reason or justification for the Tribunal to have recorded a self contradictory finding in the award to the effect that the offending vehicle was not insured as on the date of accident, as such the said finding is perverse. 4. This Court in order to test the submissions advanced, has gone through the original record of Case No. 213 of 2009 summoned before this Court and it is found that a copy of the original policy bearing premium receipt number as on 24.6.1999 is on record. Once the original policy is in the list of documents filed before the Tribunal then in such a situation, recording a contradictory finding to raise a doubt about the validity of insurance of the vehicle on the relevant date is clearly erroneous and baseless. The contradictory finding recorded by the Tribunal that the vehicle was not insured being perverse, is hereby set aside and the vehicle is treated to be covered under the insurance policy particularly when the same remained unquestionable. 5. The contradictory finding recorded by the Tribunal that the vehicle was not insured being perverse, is hereby set aside and the vehicle is treated to be covered under the insurance policy particularly when the same remained unquestionable. 5. Recording of a finding in relation to insurance policy in favour of the owner (appellant herein) goes to establish only one ground but in so far as the other ground of driving licence and its validity is concerned, the same being decided against the appellants, is strongly contested by the insurance company, represented by Sri U.P.S. Kushwaha, learned counsel. 6. The Tribunal while deciding the claims has found that though the photocopy of the driving licence is said to have been issued on 12.5.1986 was placed on record but the date of its validity was not legible which lead to a doubt for recording a finding in favour of the appellant. It is worthwhile to mention that the driver of the offending vehicle has not participated in the proceedings and the original licence was also not filed before the Tribunal so as to clear the doubt which was noticed on the photocopy of the driving licence. As per the stand taken by the insurance company in its written statement filed before the Tribunal, the validity of the driving licence was disputed. The issue framed on this aspect of the matter was duly gone into by the Tribunal which appears to be assailed before this Court baselessly and without bringing on record any prima facie or conclusive evidence on the basis of which this Court may come to a different conclusion. 7. During pendency of these appeals, an application for disposal of interim relief application was, however, filed on 5.9.2014 and some documents were placed on record alongwith the said application which includes the document alleged to have been obtained by the appellant under Right to Information Act on 9.12.2009. The said information relates to the driving licence indicating its validity as on the date of accident but the information is seriously disputed by the insurance company. The question that immediately crops up is as to whether a document filed alongwith a miscellaneous application can at all be read as a part of record in the present first appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act particularly when the respondents have a right to file objection against the said application. The question that immediately crops up is as to whether a document filed alongwith a miscellaneous application can at all be read as a part of record in the present first appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act particularly when the respondents have a right to file objection against the said application. In other words where an additional paper is filed alongwith the misc. application for disposal of interim relief application, can the document placed reliance upon be entertained as an additional evidence and that too without there being a prayer by the appellant as per the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 which is applicable to the appellate proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act. The provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 are not applicable in the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the reason that an independent procedure under the Special Act and the rules framed thereunder is provided but by virtue of Section 108 (b) of CPC the provisions of CPC are made applicable to the present proceedings. Section 108 for ready reference is extracted below: “108. Procedure in appeals from appellate decrees and order.—The provisions of this Part relating to appeals from original decrees shall, so far as may be, apply to appeal— (a) from appellate decrees, and (b) from orders made under this Code or under any special or local law in which a different procedure is not provided.” 8. Once the provisions of CPC are applicable in the present appellate proceedings, the only manner in which an additional evidence can be brought on record is by making an application under Order XLI Rule 27 and not by filing documents alongwith a misc. application for any other purpose in the proceedings. The documents having been brought on record alongwith a misc. application cannot be read in evidence, therefore, a document filed alongwith the misc. application would not lend any support to the case of the appellant on that premise. 9. There is yet another reason for not entertaining such a document by way of an additional evidence. The provisions of the old Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 require a driving licence of a paid employee to bear an endorsement on the licence issued in the prescribed form specified in First Schedule appended to Section 8. Section 8 (2) prescribes the categories of vehicles for which licence would be granted. The provisions of the old Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 require a driving licence of a paid employee to bear an endorsement on the licence issued in the prescribed form specified in First Schedule appended to Section 8. Section 8 (2) prescribes the categories of vehicles for which licence would be granted. The particulars of the licence i.e. HMV (PE) do not conform to the statutory format although recital of an endorsement as PSV (Public Service Vehicle) is made but the same does not satisfy the requirement as prescribed under the Statute as to the category of vehicle. Without commenting upon the authenticity of the document which itself was procured much after the date of award rendered by the Tribunal, suffice it to say that such a document having not been filed before this Court as an additional evidence, does not form part of record and does not call for consideration and the observation made above has been made looking to the prima facie value of the document in the light of Statute. 10. The second ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant on the question of validity of licence fails, as such, the present appeals fail on this vital ground. The objection of the insurance company that statutory condition under Section 149 (2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, fortifies their stand for the purpose of recovery right against the appellant, therefore, is made out and is upheld. 11. Learned counsel for the insurance company has also drawn my attention to the provision of sub-section (c) of Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which was inserted by Amendment Act No. 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994. It is noticed that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals do not pay attention to the observance of this statutory provision while adjudicating upon the accident claims. In order to check fake claims, it is necessary that a general direction is issued to all the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals to ensure that the requirement of notice by the owners of the offending vehicles to the insurance companies in terms of Section 134, wherever raised, is considered on its merit before fixing the liability on the insurer. 12. In view of the above, both the FAFOs fail and are hereby dismissed. ——————