JUDGMENT Nandita Dubey, J. 1. Heard on LA. No. 14599/2018, dated 29th November, 2018, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. for taking additional documents on record. 2. On perusal of documents appended to this application, it is seen that Document A/1 dated 8th March, 2010, Investigation report as well as document A/2, letter dated 11th March, 2010 are unsigned. Hence, the documents could not be considered. Document A/3, letter of Regional Transport Authority is dated 26th February, 2010. 3. All these documents were available with the appellant since 2010, but there is nothing in the application as to why they could not be produced before the Tribunal or at the time of filing of present appeal. 4. Hence, this application is rejected. 5. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, both the appeals heard finally. 6. Both these appeals arise out of the common award, hence they are being decided by this common order. 7. Both the appeals, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 9th August, 2012 passed by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur, in claim case Nos. 65/2010 and 67/2010. 8. Claimant. Nos. 1 to 3 are respectively wife, son and father of deceased Uttam Singh in claim case No. 65/2010, while in claim case No. 67/2010, claimant No. 1 is wife, claimant Nos. 2 to 4 are sons and daughter and claimant Nos. 5 and 6 are parents of deceased Arjun Singh, owner and driver of the vehicle. 9. On 27th March, 2009, deceased Uttam Singh and Arjun Singh were travelling in Maruti Van No. MP 20-CC/2853 with Shyam. It was alleged that Arjun Singh, who was the owner and driver of the vehicle drove the van in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of, which the van turned turtle, on account of which deceased Uttan Singh sustained fatal injuries and did not survive the impact. Arjun Singh has also died in the said incident. 10. Claimants in claim petition No. 65/2010, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,00,000 on account of death of Uttam Singh. Arjun Singh has also died in the said incident. 10. Claimants in claim petition No. 65/2010, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,00,000 on account of death of Uttam Singh. Similarly wife and children of deceased Arjun Singh also filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,80,000. 11. It was stated that Uttam Singh had gone to Jabalpur on 26th March, 2009 along with Arjun Singh and Shankar in Arjun Singh's Maruti Van. While returning from Jabalpur, the van met with an accident, when suddenly some cattle came on the road, due to which Arjun lost the control of the van and it turned turtle, as a result of which Arjun Singh and Uttam Singh sustained grievous injuries. They were admitted in the hospital, where they succumbed to their injuries. 12. The appellant Insurance Company in its written statement denied the averments of the claim petition. The claim was contested on the ground that the vehicle was driven in breach of insurance policy, as the owner, who was also the driver was using the car as a taxi and not holding any valid and effective licence. 13. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties allowed the claim petitions holding that the claimants in Claim case No. 65/2010 are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,04,000 with 7% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition, the claimants in Claim case No. 67/2010 are also entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000 with 7% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. The Tribunal recorded a finding that at the time of accident, deceased Arjuri Singh was driving his own Omni Van and Shankar and Uttam Singh were travelling with him as friends and the fare was charged with them. The Tribunal also found that as per the Insurance Policy (Ex. D-l), which was effective from 26th February, 2009 to 25th February, 2010, liability in the case of owner and driver was Rs. 2 lacs and Rs. 100 premium was charged from deceased Arjun Singh. 14. Hallobai, wife of deceased Arjun Singh has produced the driving licence of Arjun Singh, which was exhibited as P-8. D-l), which was effective from 26th February, 2009 to 25th February, 2010, liability in the case of owner and driver was Rs. 2 lacs and Rs. 100 premium was charged from deceased Arjun Singh. 14. Hallobai, wife of deceased Arjun Singh has produced the driving licence of Arjun Singh, which was exhibited as P-8. The appellant Insurance Company has not produced any evidence in rebuttal. Thus the Tribunal has not committed any error in recording a finding that Arjun Singh was having a valid licence. 15. As regard the contention of the Insurance Company that the Van was run as a taxi, Shankar who was also travelling by the same vehicle has deposed that he, Arjun and Uttam were travelling as friends and no fare was charged from them. Since Uttam Singh was travelling as third party in the vehicle, the liability of the Insurance Company was rightly held to pay the compensation. 16. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.