JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal is directed against the pronouncement of 01.10.2015, recorded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III), Shimla, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 52-S/2 of 2013/11. Under the impugned judgment, for want of adduction into evidence of the apposite fitness certificate qua the offending vehicle, hence the apposite liability to pay the compensation amount determined thereunder, stood fastened upon the owner, yet, the insurer was directed to initially make deposit of the compensation amount, whereas the right to recover it from the owner was reserved in favour of the insurer. The owner standing aggrieved, hence for assailing it, prefers the instant appeal before this Court. 2. The conclusion, formed by the learned Tribunal of the vehicle concerned not at the relevant time holding the relevant fitness certificate, whereupon it stood rendered unplayable on the road, was sequelled by the fact of the official concerned of the Transport Department, not during the course of recording of his deposition, bringing to the learned Tribunal the relevant fitness certificate. However, during the pendency of the instant appeal before this Court, the aggrieved owner, has instituted an application under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC wherein, he seeks the leave of this Court to tender into evidence, the relevant fitness certificate issued by the relevant authority with respect to the offending vehicle. In the application, an averment is made that the relief for adducing into evidence the fitness certificate be granted, as the same is just and essential, for pronouncement of an adjudication upon the relevant issue. However, the counsel for the insurer, contends with vigor that with the owner leading into the witness box, the official concerned of the Transport Department, who then did not hold the relevant record qua the fitness certificate issued with respect to the offending vehicle, yet, the owner constraining the learned Tribunal, to proceed to record his deposition nor the owner despite the witness concerned not tendering before the learned Tribunal, the apposite fitness certificate, hence making a prayer for the recalling, for the relevant purpose, of the witness concerned, displays gross negligence on the part of the owner, to adduce the best evidence with respect to the relevant factum, hence the relief sought from this Court in the application moved herebefore under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, warrants its being declined. 3. 3. The aforesaid submissions addressed before this Court by the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, is supported by a reading of the deposition of RW-1, as placed on record by the learned counsel for the insurer, reading whereof reveals that RW-1 did not at the relevant date bring to the learned Tribunal, the records pertaining to the period contemporaneous to the issuance of the relevant fitness certificate with respect to the offending vehicle, consequence whereof is, the mere fact of the owner constraining the learned Tribunal to record his deposition would not perse beget an inference of his being grossly negligent in his not seeking recall for the relevant purpose, of the witness concerned, significantly when the learned Tribunal was also under an obligation, for ensuring elicitation of best evidence, for hence enabling it to return findings on the relevant issue, to hence suo motu order for recall of the witness concerned, to enable him to adduce the relevant certificate, before it. Since the learned Tribunal was also obliged to hence order for the witness concerned being directed to on any subsequent date bring the relevant records, hence, the learned counsel for the insurer, cannot contend that for want of any steps being taken by the owner, for seeking recalling of the official concerned, he is hence debarred to seek relief on the instant application. Conspicuously, also when its adduction into evidence is just and essential for enabling this Court to record a pronouncement on the relevant issue also when despite the owner possessing the relevant certificate with respect to the offending vehicle, he yet would stand consequently entailed with an obligation, to pay the compensation amount, to the claimants. Consequently, for obviating perpetuation of injustice, the application is allowed. The apposite fitness certificate is permitted to be tendered into evidence by the aggrieved before the learned Tribunal concerned. The insurer shall be granted an opportunity to adduce rebuttal evidence with respect thereto. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 19.6.2017. Thereafter, the apposite fitness certificate be adduced into evidence before the learned Tribunal also the insurer shall be afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence in rebuttal thereto, whereafter, the learned Tribunal shall proceed to record a afresh decision on the relevant issue, formulated with respect thereto by it. For facilitating the aforesaid endeavor, the matter is remanded to the learned Tribunal. For facilitating the aforesaid endeavor, the matter is remanded to the learned Tribunal. Also hence, in view of the observations recorded hereinabove, the impugned award is quashed and set aside, only with respect to the findings returned on the issue pertaining to the relevant fitness certificate. The learned Tribunal is also directed to return fresh findings upon the aforesaid issue within two months after 19.6.2017.