JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Having heard the rival contentions put forth by learned Counsel for the parties, it transpires that the accident took place on 28.9.2007 by Truck No.HR-58B-0191, which, while being driven by its driver Mohd. Rafi rashly and negligently, dashed a 14 years’ boy named Rahul who succumbed to his injuries on the spot itself. 2. When the process was sent to the owner and driver of the Truck, only the owner turned up and filed his written statement while the driver did not appear despite having been served much less filing any written statement or producing the licence to drive such vehicle in order to facilitate the proper adjudication of the case. All the more, the owner Mr. Rai Singh, who filed photocopies of certain documents viz. registration certificate, insurance policy, permit, which were taken on record by the Trial Judge at the cost of Rs.300/-, but the owner did not deposit any such cost ever and thereafter, he too disappeared and did not take any trouble to appear in the witness box so that he could have been examined on the point of availability of the driver of the offending vehicle. So, the Tribunal was constrained to decree the award to be recoverable from the owner and driver jointly and severally. This judgment has been under challenge before this Court. 3. An application (CLMA 3824/10) under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed before this Court by Mr. Rai Singh along with his affidavit. By this application, he now seeks to bring on record the endorsement of the licensing authorities of Muzaffarnagar (Uttar Pradesh) perhaps for showing the validity of the driving licence of Mr. Mohd. Rafi on the date of accident. On a perusal of such document, I find that the endorsement is not happily legible and nor it is in the neat handwriting; it has been signed by some illegible signatures and no authenticity thereon can be placed by this Court. 4. Furthermore, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company has urged before the Court that despite sending repeated notices to the driver and owner for producing the driving licence before the office of the Company, they did not appear. 4. Furthermore, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company has urged before the Court that despite sending repeated notices to the driver and owner for producing the driving licence before the office of the Company, they did not appear. So, in my view, this endorsement, sought to be brought on record by the appellant no.1, has no sanctity and thus, is unacceptable to this Court since it appears to have been procured by foul means in order to evade the liability of paying the amount of compensation. So, the application (CLMA 3824/2010) is rejected. 5. At the same time, I also do not find any sound reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. The appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed. 6. The Tribunal concerned is directed to release the entire amount so deposited before it in favour of the claimants/respondent nos.1 and 2 without asking for any security/surety. 7. For the remaining money, the claimants will be at liberty to take recourse to the execution proceedings. 8. Let a copy of this judgment along with the LCR be sent to the Tribunal concerned for compliance forthwith.