ORDER : 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/owner under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the award dated 10.09.2010 passed by 2nd M.A.C.T., Shahdol in Claim Case No.09/09. 2. It is not in dispute that offending bus bearing registration No. MP 18/6945 is insured by the respondent no.4. On the date of accident i.e. on 19.3.2002, the respondent no.1 was driver and the appellant was owner of the aforesaid bus. 3. The appellant has challenged the findings of learned Tribunal, whereby the respondent no.4/Insurance Company was exonerated from the liability to pay compensation in favour of the respondents no.1 and 2. It is claimed by the appellant that all the necessary documents like permit, fitness certificate and registration papers were handed over to the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant but he failed to exhibit the same before learned Tribunal. Hence, the appellant wants to produce fitness certificate, permit and inquest report as additional documents. Therefore, he has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC i.e. I.A. No.12078/2010. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that no issues were framed by the learned Tribunal regarding inquest report, fitness and permit of offending vehicle. Therefore, the same had not been proved at the time of evidence. Hence, the appellant has prayed that such documents be taken on record under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. 5. As per Insurance Company/respondent no.4, no permit or fitness certificate of bus bearing registration no. MP-18/6945 was issued by the competent authority. Learned Tribunal found that there was no valid and effective driving licence with the respondent no.3 at the time of incident. The offending vehicle was being driven by violating the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The appellant did not take any objection to make the issues on the basis of Provision contained in Sections 66, 158 and 192(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal. The appellant has not explained that why he had not produced vehicle fitness certificate and permit before the learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal elaborately discusssed the issue no.4 in paragraph 17 of the impugned award. Therefore, appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed. 6. The appellant has not explained that why he had not produced vehicle fitness certificate and permit before the learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal elaborately discusssed the issue no.4 in paragraph 17 of the impugned award. Therefore, appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed. 6. The present appeal is pending since the year 2010 and listed for final hearing but none appeared on behalf of the respondents, therefore, the appeal and cross-objection are considered on its merit. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and perused the record. 8. This Court finds that the issues are properly framed by learned Tribunal for proper adjudication of the dispute. With regard to cross-objection filed by the respondent no.4/Insurance Company, learned Tribunal has properly held in issue No.2 that the respondent no.3, 4 and appellant failed to prove that accident was occurred due to contributory negligence of the claimant Ashok (since deceased). The above finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence. Hence, it is not required for interference by this Court. 9. The appellant had participated in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, which was pending from the year 2006 to 2008. In para 17 with regard to issue no.4, learned Tribunal has found that a specific plea was taken by the Insurance Company/respondent no.4 for breach of policy particularly in absence of fitness certificate and permit of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. The appellant himself examined as a witness on 30.8.2010, but he never disclosed that he had possessed any fitness certificate or permit of the offending vehicle with him. The appellant has filed aforesaid documents before this Court without any proper and satisfactory reasons, therefore, application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, I.A. No.12078/2010 is dismissed. 10. Learned Tribunal discussed in detailed in para 14 to 17 about the breach of insurance policy in the impugned award and found that by adducing evidence, the Insurance Company has properly proved that the respondent no.3/driver did not have any valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. His licence Ex.D/2 was not issued by the RTO, Jhansi and that licence was fake. Therefore, in the light of principles laid down in the cases of “United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Davinder Singh, 2008 ACJ Vol.1(1)”, “Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. His licence Ex.D/2 was not issued by the RTO, Jhansi and that licence was fake. Therefore, in the light of principles laid down in the cases of “United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Davinder Singh, 2008 ACJ Vol.1(1)”, “Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Prathviraj, AIR 2008 (SC) 1408 ”, “National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Swarn Singh and others, AIR 2004 (SC) 1531 ”, “Prem Kumar and others Vs. Prahlad Deo and others, AIR 2008 (SC), 1073” and “National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa Bharthamma and others, 2004 Vol.-II, ACC. Learned Tribunal has held that at the time of accident, the offending bus was used for passenger vehicle without any permit and fitness certificate and it was driven by the respondent no.1 without any valid and effective driving licence, which proves breach of insurance policy. Hence, learned Tribunal has properly held that appellant/owner is liable to pay the compensation in favour of the respondents no.1 and 2, who are legal representatives of the deceased Ashok. The Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company/respondent no.4 from the liability to pay the compensation. 11. This Court finds that there is no ground to interfere in the findings of learned Tribunal. Hence, present appeal is dismissed.