JUDGMENT Sanjay Vashisth. J. (Oral) The present Regular Second Appeal is directed at the instance of appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited against the concurrent findings of fact, recorded by both the Courts below, whereby, suit for declaration filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) was decreed. 2. Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, puts in appearance on behalf of respondent No.3, and files his power of attorney in Court today, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Office to tag the same at appropriate place in case file. 3. One Surinder Kumar working as Record Clerk in the company of the appellant (defendant No.2), expired on 14.01.2016 in a roadside accident. As the next successor, respondent i.e. plaintiff No.l-Paramjit Kaur who is widow of deceased, demanded retiral benefits from the defendant-Insurance Company. The defendant-insurance company refused to give her the said retiral benefits under the pretext that she is not the actual widow of deceased-Surinder Kumar. Resultantly, respondents (plaintiffs) i.e. widow-Paramjit Kaur, son-Rajan and daughter-Sonia filed the civil suit before the trial Court against General Public and the Insurance Company for seeking a decree of declaration claiming themselves to be the dependants/legal heirs of Lt. Sh. Surinder Kumar son of Tara Chand. Learned trial Court found that by leading ample evidence, respondents/plaintiffs have succeeded in proving that they are the actual successors/legal heirs of Record Clerk-Surinder Kumar and none else. Said finding was recorded by learned trial Court by examining the record available with the Insurance company (defendant No.2) itself, wherein name of wife of Surinder Kumar is mentioned as Paramjit Kaur. 4. Finding given in paragraph No.8 by learned trial Court is reproduced hereinbelow:- "It is not out of context to mention here that the defendant department also failed to cross-examine the plaintiff and her witnesses, nor any such application for cross-examining the witness has been moved by defendant, which otherwise mean that they have conceded the claim of plaintiff. From the documentary led on the file it stands proved that Paramjit Kaur, Sonia and Rajan Mangotra are the dependent/legal heir of late Surinder Kumar. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. " 5. When the Insurance Company went in appeal, said finding was reiterated by the 1st Appellate Court also. Paragraphs No.16, 17 and 18 of the judgment of the Appellate Court are reproduced hereinunder:- "16. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. " 5. When the Insurance Company went in appeal, said finding was reiterated by the 1st Appellate Court also. Paragraphs No.16, 17 and 18 of the judgment of the Appellate Court are reproduced hereinunder:- "16. In the present case, defendant has taken a plea that plaintiff Paramjit Kaur is not widow of deceased Surinder Kumar and in fact, it is another lady who is filing this suit in the name of Paramjit Kaur while Paramjit Kaur is no more in the world. With regard to this, this Court can say that in case decree is obtained by some other lady in the name of Paramjit Kaur then it will not be binding upon the defendant. Court is granting decree to Paramjit Kaur widow of deceased Surinder Kumar not to any other lady. 17. Declaration form filled by late Surinder Kumar Ex. D-l which is brought on record by defendant department mentions the names and employee number of late Surinder Kumar as 24234 and similar number is mentioned at the Staff Group Medical Claim Policy issued by defendant department wherein the name of plaintiff Paramjit Kaur is mentioned as wife of Surinder Kumar. 18. In the present case, defendants could not lead any evidence with regard to that some other lady claiming herself to be Paramjit Kaur has filed the present suit. Plaintiff No. 2 Raj an and plaintiff No.3 Sonia are not disputed to be son and daughter of the deceased Surinder Kumar. Evidence led by plaintiffs remained unrebutted and unchallenged. In the given circumstances, it can be said that no fault can be found in the well reasoned judgment passed by learned lower Court declaring that Paramjit Kaur is widow of late Surinder Kaur and Rajan is son of Surinder Kumar and Sonia is daughter of deceased Surinder Kumar. " 6. At the time of the hearing of the present appeal, a specific question was asked from the counsel representing the Insurance Company that what is the stand of the Insurance Company about the status of legal heirs i.e. plaintiff No.2-Rajan and plaintiff No.3-Sonia and as to whether in the absence of vesting of any right in plaintiff No.l-Paramjit Kaur, would they be next successor or not to get the retiral benefits of Surinder Kumar? Learned counsel for the insurance company answered the above question in affirmative. However, there is no explanation that if according to the Insurance Company, if said retiral benefits were not payable to plaintiff No.l as she had already died; why the same was not offered to or given to the remaining plaintiffs who are undisputedly son and daughter of deceased Record Clerk-Surinder Kumar. 7. While arguing an application for leading additional evidence, i.e. CM-4675-C-2020, counsel for the appellant could not make out his point, as to for what special reason appellant be permitted to lead additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Even, neither there is any submission nor any explanation that said documents could not be produced on the record before the trial Court or the 1st Appellate Court despite of all due diligence on the part of the appellant-defendant. Thus, parameters required to be met with, for leading additional evidence are completely missing. 8. From the admission made by the appellant, this Court has also taken note of the fact that respondents No.2 and 3 are otherwise also entitled to inherit the service/retiral benefits of their father-Surinder Kumar. It is also noticed that General Public is the defendant in the suit but there was no objection or opposition, ever expressed by anybody before the Court. 9. Agreeing with the concurrent finding of fact, this Court does not find any substantial reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. Accordingly, same are maintained. 10. The present appeal as well as the application for permission to lead additional evidence are hereby dismissed. Before parting with the judgment, this Court would certainly express its sentiments about the conduct of the Insurance Company. Without there being any substantial evidence, amount of retiral/service benefits has been withheld by the Insurance Company and the legal heirs of the Record Clerk-Surinder Kumar are made to wait for about 7 years. Hence, this Court considers it expedient in the interest of justice to impose a cost of amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac only) upon the United India Insurance Company Limited, which would be payable to the respondents-plaintiffs.