JUDGMENT : S.G. PANDIT, J. 1. The appellant is before this Court, aggrieved by the saddling of liability under the judgment and award dated 18.04.2015 in MVC No. 752/2010 on the file of the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge, MACT at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short). 2. The appellant who is the third respondent before the Tribunal was a financier to the first respondent for purchase of Tractor-trailer. The claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the injuries suffered in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 28.03.2007, when the claimant was proceeding on Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-02/EB-8134 as a pillion rider, a Tractor and Trailer bearing Registration No. KA-06/T-8451 and 8452 dashed against the two wheeler of the claimant while over-taking another lorry bearing Registration No. KA-02/D-3010. Due to the accidental impact, the claimant suffered grievous injuries. It is stated that he is a Class-II Contractor and an agriculturist and was earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. 3. On issuance of notice, the respondents appeared before the Tribunal and filed objections. The first respondent denied the accident and involvement of his vehicle. Further he stated that the vehicle was hypothecated to respondent No. 3 and stated that they have obtained insurance policy to the vehicle. Respondent No. 2/Insurance Company filed statement contending that the Tractor and Trailer is not insured with them for the relevant period i.e., as on 28.03.2007 and the policy was effective from 30.03.2007. As such, they stated that they are not liable to pay any compensation. 4. Respondent No. 3 in his statement denied the accident and also denied the treatment taken by the claimant. Further, stated that the vehicle is duly insured with the second respondent and the amount has been paid by the 3rd respondent on 26.03.2007 itself to the second respondent/Insurance Company, and as such, risk commences from the date of accepting the amount. 5. The claimant got himself examined as PW-1 and also examined the Doctor as PW-2 and PW-3 a Medical Officer from Hosmat Hospital apart from marking Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. The first respondent examined himself as RW-1, the Branch Manager of 3rd respondent was examined as RW-2 and the Assistant Manager of second respondent was examined as RW-3, apart from marking Ex.R1 to Ex.R9(a). 6. The first respondent examined himself as RW-1, the Branch Manager of 3rd respondent was examined as RW-2 and the Assistant Manager of second respondent was examined as RW-3, apart from marking Ex.R1 to Ex.R9(a). 6. The Tribunal, on appreciating the material placed before it, awarded total compensation of Rs. 3,38,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and saddled the liability on third respondent. The third respondent being aggrieved by saddling liability on it, is before this Court in this appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3. Perused the lower court records. 8. The appellant/3rd respondent before the Tribunal has filed an application I.A. No. 1/2019 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC seeking permission to produce the following four documents: 1. The copy of the Debit/Transfer voucher dated 26.03.2007. 2. Copy of the Register Extract for issuance of Demand Draft dated 26.03.2007. 3. Copy of the Dispatch Register Extract dated 27.03.2007. 4. Copy of the Hypothecation Agreement dated 10.09.2003. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant/Bank had obtained the Demand Draft for a sum of Rs. 9,965/- on 26.03.2007 and it dispatched the same from the Bank on 27.03.2007 to the 2nd respondent/insurer towards insurance premium of the tractor-trailer in question. To evidence the fact of obtaining the Demand Draft and having dispatched the same on 27.03.2007, learned counsel for the appellant has produced the documents No. 1 and 2 along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. Accepting for a moment that the appellant/Bank had obtained the Demand Draft on 26.03.2007 and the same was dispatched on 27.03.2007. The appellant has not placed any material evidence to demonstrate that the said Demand Draft reached the second respondent/Insurer on 28th or 29th March 2007. The policy is admittedly issued from 30.03.2007. Further, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant/ respondent No. 3 had written a letter as per Ex.R6 seeking information with regard to receipt of the Demand Draft by them. But, it is his submission that there is no reply from the Insurer. The policy is admittedly issued from 30.03.2007. Further, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant/ respondent No. 3 had written a letter as per Ex.R6 seeking information with regard to receipt of the Demand Draft by them. But, it is his submission that there is no reply from the Insurer. As the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the Demand Draft has reached the Insurer on 28.03.2007, the risk commences from the date of receipt of the Demand Draft by the Insurer. Therefore, he submits that saddling the liability on 3rd respondent by the Tribunal is wholly erroneous and illegal. Thus, prays for allowing the appeal. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance Company submits that the Demand Draft was received on 30.03.2007 and the second respondent issued Policy immediately on receipt of the Demand Draft i.e. from 30.03.2007 at Ex.R9 and relevant entry is at Ex.R9(a). The premium register extract which indicates the receipt of premium on 03.03.2007. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire material on record, the only point which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the Tribunal is justified in saddling the liability on 3rd respondent/appellant herein? 12. Answer to the above question is in the affirmative for the following reasons: The accident occurred on 28.03.2007 involving Hero Honda bearing registration No. KA-02/EB-8134, Tractor and Trailer bearing Registration No. KA-06/T- 8451 and 8452 and a lorry bearing Registration No. KA-02/D-3010 and the accidental injuries suffered by the claimant are not in dispute in this appeal. The 3rd respondent’s appeal is restricted to the portion of judgment and award, by which the liability is saddled on the appellant. The only contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the second respondent/Insurance Company received the premium towards the Tractor and Trailer on 28.03.2007 and risk commences from the said date. In support of his contention, the appellant has produced four documents along with the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. The only contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the second respondent/Insurance Company received the premium towards the Tractor and Trailer on 28.03.2007 and risk commences from the said date. In support of his contention, the appellant has produced four documents along with the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. Document No. 1 indicates the Demand Draft obtained by the 3rd respondent/Bank; document No. 2 is to evidence the dispatch of the Demand Draft to the second respondent/Insurance Company; document No. 3 is the dispatch register extract to indicate the dispatch of the Demand Draft to the second respondent on 27.03.2007; document No. 4 is a Form for obtaining loan and document No. 5 is the Hypothecation agreement. However, these documents are not relevant to the case of the appellant. In the application, the appellant has not stated as to why they could not produce the same before the Tribunal. Moreover, I am of the view that those documents are not relevant for deciding the issue involved in the appeal. The appellant/Bank has not produced any material or document to demonstrate that the second respondent/Insurance Company received the Demand Draft towards premium on or before 30.03.2007. It is the categorical statement of the second respondent/Insurance Company that the Insurance Company received the premium amount only on 30.03.2007 and in support of their contention, they have produced Ex.R9 and particular entry is marked as Ex.R9(a) which would demonstrate that the premium amount is received by the second respondent/Insurance Company only on 30.03.2007 and from the date of receipt of the amount, the Policy is issued in respect of the Tractor and Trailer in question. As the documents produced along with I.A. No. 1/2019 are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in the appeal, I.A. No. 1/2019 is dismissed. 13. It is the case of the appellant/Bank that they have financed the Tractor and Trailer of respondent No. 1. To insure the said vehicle, the appellant/respondent No. 3 had obtained the Demand Draft on 26.03.2007 and it is the specific case of the appellant that the same was dispatched to the second respondent on 27.03.2007, but the appellant has failed to establish that the said Demand Draft was delivered to the second respondent/Insurance Company either on 28th or 29th March 2007. On the other hand, the insurer has established that the premium amount through Demand Draft was received by them only on 30.03.2007 by producing Ex.R9-Premium Register Extract. Thus, the appellant has failed to establish that the appellant had paid the premium as on the date of accident and the risk was covered as on the date of paying premium. 14. The judgment and award of the Tribunal is neither perverse nor erroneous so as to warrant interference. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. 15. The amount in deposit be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal. 16. The Registry is directed to send back the records to the Tribunal forthwith.