JUDGEMENT & ORDER : 1. Challenging here is the legality and propriety of the judgment and award dated 28.01.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Court No. 1, West Tripura Agartala in connection with the Case No. T.S (MAC) 221 of 2013. 2. Briefly stated, the appellant-Insurance Company was impleaded as opposite party No.2 in T.S. (MAC) 221 of 2013 and it contested the suit. After hearing all the parties, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 59,000/-only along with an interest @ 9 % per annum w.e.f. 27.05.2013 till the date of actual payment. The appellant-Insurance Company being the insurer of the offending vehicle was directed to make payment of the said sum of Rs. 59,000/- along with the interest in terms of the judgment of the Tribunal. 3. The main ground for preferring this present appeal is that the appellant-Insurance Company was not aware about the falsity of the discharge certificate and as such on good faith the company did neither challenge the discharge certificate before the learned Tribunal nor did verify its genuineness. After completion of the proceeding the appellant-Insurance Company through its investigator filed an application under R.T.I. and the State Public Information Officer informed the company that the discharge certificate was not a genuine one. 4. Along with the memorandum of appeal the appellant has also filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC 1908 praying before this Court to accept the copy of the R.T.I. application along with the discharge certificate issued by the Medical Superintendent, Agartala Government Medical College and G.B.P Hospital, Agartala, West Tripura (State Public Information Officer) in favour of one Sri Manir Hossian and copy of the reply dated 20.03.2017 given to the investigator by the State Public Information Officer. 5. Heard Ms. R. Purukayastha, learned counsel who has strenuously argued to accept the application for adducing additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC, and also Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents who vehemently has objected to the said prayer on the ground that the appellant got ample opportunity to defend their case and there was no question of falsity of the discharge certificate produced by the claimant which was under extensive examination of the learned Tribunal. 6. I have perused the grounds taken for accepting the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27. 6. I have perused the grounds taken for accepting the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27. It is contended that the dis-charge certificate which was produced by the claimant-respondent was not genuine and the appellant had proceeded on good faith and for that reason they did neither challenge the discharge certificate nor verify its genuineness. After pronouncement of the judgment the Insurance Company through their investigator obtained a reply from the Superintendent of Agartala Government Medical Collage and G.B.P. Hospital through R.T.I application wherein it was contended that the discharge certificate which the petitioner-claimant had produced before the learned Tribunal was not actually issued in favour of the claimant-respondent No.1 herein but it was issued against someone else. 7. Per contra, Mr. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant-respondents submits that the discharge certificate was under the extensive scrutiny of the Tribunal and found to be a genuine one. None of the respondents had raised any objection and the Tribunal after being satisfied marked the document as Exbt-6. The accident was admitted by the owner as well as the insurance Company. He further submits that the Tribunal after considering the evidence in regard to the treatment of the injured claimant had awarded compensation for a sum of Rs. 59,000/- along with interest 8. Mr. Roy, learned counsel has invited the attention of this Court to one of the issues framed by learned Tribunal, which is reproduced hereunder as to whether:- “(1) Did the claimant sustain injury on 04.12.2012 at about 2.30 p.m. at Charilam near Charilam High School on Agartala Sabroom Road under Bishalgarh Police Station in a road Traffic accident involving the vehicle bearing registration No. TR-03-1349 (Bus) and Truck bearing registration No. TRL-4103 due to rash and negligent driving either or both the vehicle”. 9. While considering the above issue the learned Tribunal came to a finding that:- “8.... The claimant petitioner Sri Manir Hossain examined himself as PW1 and has substantiated his pleading that on 04.12.2012 he was coming from Bishramganj to Agartala boarding the Bus bearing registration No. TR-03-1349 and when it reached at Charilam High School, it collided with a Truck bearing registration No. TRL-4103 due to rash and negligent driving by the drivers of both the vehicles. He has exhibited some documents i.e. certified copy of FIR as Exbt.1, Ejahar as Exbt.2. He has exhibited some documents i.e. certified copy of FIR as Exbt.1, Ejahar as Exbt.2. seizure list as Exbt.2(sic), final report as Exbt.5, discharge summary as Exbt.6 and cash memos as Exbt.6/1, 6/2 and 6/3 respectively. None appeared on behalf of O.Ps to cross examine the claimant-petitioner. More-over, they have not adduced any evidence in support of their case.” 10. On consideration of all the documents, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that as a result of the accident some passengers of the bus including the claimant-respondent No.1 were sustained injuries on their persons and the bus was also damaged. It was also found that the claimant-respondent No.1 after the accident was under treatment at G.B.P. Hospital w.e.f 04.12.2012 to 15.01.2013 with amputation of his left foot following RTA. It is also revealed that the FIR, discharged summary and the chargesheet corroborates each other about the accident and the injuries of the claimant-respondent No. 1. In the cross examination, the credibility of the claimant-respondent No. 1 could not be shaken by any standard so as to dis-believe him. On the other hand, none of the opposite parties including the applicant-appellant Insurance Company did not make any endeavour to controvert the oral testimony of claimant-respondent since they did not raise any objection against any of the document submitted by the claimant-respondent No.1 during the course of the proceeding. The Tribunal on consideration of the genuineness of the documents since none of these documents were challenged by any of the opposite parties, had accepted and exhibited the said documents in course of the proceedings. 11. In my considered opinion despite enough opportunity, the apathy of the insurance company to appear and cross examine challenging the veracity and the genuineness of the documents imply proves that they allowed the Tribunal to take those documents into evidence as proved. The appellant -applicant Insurance Company has categorically stated in the application under Order XLI Rule 27 that they were unaware of the falsity of the discharge certificate submitted by the claimant-respondent No.1, meaning thereby, they did not make any endeavour to verify the genuinity of the said documents. The appellant-Insurance Company has contested the suit that leads me to come to the conclusion that the contents of the discharge certificate was well within their knowledge. The appellant-Insurance Company has contested the suit that leads me to come to the conclusion that the contents of the discharge certificate was well within their knowledge. The contention made in the application for additional evidence clearly shows that the Insurance Company had never raised any such plea raising their doubts about the genuinity of the discharge certificate. 12. The cardinal principle the Court is to follow before accepting a prayer for adducing additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 is that the party seeking to produce additional evidence has to establish that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed. 13. In the case in hand, the statement made in the application for adducing additional evidence clearly depicts that the applicant-insurance Company never exercised due diligence to prove the ingenuity of the discharge certificate submitted by the claimant-respondent No.1 which is issued by the competent authority of Agartala Government Medical College and G.B.P. Hospital. The said document was well within their knowledge. It is not the case of the applicant-Insurance Company that they could not obtain any information about the said document even after the exercise of due diligence rather they said that after the pronouncement of the judgment they took the initiative to verify the genuinity of the said discharge certificate (Exbt-6) which has been proved and marked as Exbt-6 during the course of the proceeding before the learned Tribunal. (underlined for emphasis) Recently, a trend has come to light that the Insurance Company in spite of its enough infrastructure and machinery does not feel it necessary to place or answer particulars, which would be relevant for proper adjudication of the suit and they take up the case very casually and after that due to the reasons best known to them they approach the High Court by filling an appeal with a petition for adducing additional evidence. According to me, this kind of casual approach of the Insurance Company is unexpected. 14. In the instant case, the Insurance Company even did not file its answer to cross examine the claimant-respondent No.1. Even as I have stated earlier it was not their plea before the Tribunal expressing their doubt in regard to the documents submitted by the claimant-respondent No.1. 14. In the instant case, the Insurance Company even did not file its answer to cross examine the claimant-respondent No.1. Even as I have stated earlier it was not their plea before the Tribunal expressing their doubt in regard to the documents submitted by the claimant-respondent No.1. According to me, at this stage the Insurance Company should not be given undue indulgence to take such a plea which will only encourage them to flout the principles of equity. 15. In K.R. Mohan Reddy V. M/s. Net Work Inc. Rep. Tr.M.D. reported in AIR 2008 SC 579 , their lordships held that the power of the appellate Court to pass an order under Order XLI Rule 27 is limited. For exercising its jurisdiction under order XLI Rule 27 the High Court being the appellate Court must arrive at a finding that one or the other condition enumerated in order XLI Rule 27 is satisfied. Apart from that a good reason must also be shown as to why the evidence was not produced in the Trial Court. 16. I am not oblivion of the provisions of Section 107 of the CPC empowering the appellate Court to take additional evidence in the event of its requirement. But, according to this Court to avail benefit of Section 107, the essential requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 must be fulfilled. On conjoint reading of Section 107 of the CPC and Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, it is clear that Section 107 CPC is an enabling provision that conferred a right upon the plaintiff to adduce additional evidence at the appellate state, but this right must be exercised within the limited scope and ambit of Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC and subject to the fulfillment of the conditions laid down in the said provision. I have perused the discharge certificate issued in favour of the claimant-respondent No. 1 as well as the reply of the information officer. It is found that the State Public Information Officer of AGMC and GBP Hospital no-where has stated that the said hospital did not issue such certificate(Exbt-6) as produced by the Claimant-respondent No. 1 during the proceeding before the Tribunal and more over amputation of the foot of the claimant-respondent No.1 was not disputed by the applicant-Insurance Company. It is found that the State Public Information Officer of AGMC and GBP Hospital no-where has stated that the said hospital did not issue such certificate(Exbt-6) as produced by the Claimant-respondent No. 1 during the proceeding before the Tribunal and more over amputation of the foot of the claimant-respondent No.1 was not disputed by the applicant-Insurance Company. It is also undisputed fact that claimant-respondent No. 1 suffered injuries in the accident and was admitted to AGMC and GBP Hospital. The fact of which according to the learned Tribunal, has been proved and corroborated in the charge sheet submitted by the police. In view of the above discussions I find no substantial cause to allow the application for adducing additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. 17. Hence, in the light of the above observations I refrain to accept the new plea of the applicant-Insurance Company for fresh adjudication of the suit or to reopen the case by way of permitting the Insurance Company to adduce additional evidence before this Court on the basis of the reply of the State Public Information Officer. 18. On query of this Court, the learned counsel submits that she has no other ground to pursue this appeal. 19. In the above conspectus, I am not inclined to allow the application filed under Rule XLI Order 27 of the CPC for adducing additional evidence and consequently, the same is rejected. The appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company also fails and stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs.