JUDGMENT : ARUN KUMAR RAI, J. 1. The claimants are the appellants before this Court. The instant Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 12.03.2014 passed in Claim Case No. 32/2008 passed by learned District Judge-V-cum- P.O., M.V. Act, Hazaribagh whereby the claim application has been dismissed as the learned Tribunal has decided all the issues against the claimants. 2. It is the case of the appellants/claimants that on 22.06.2007 was fateful day when accident took place between the Motorcycle and a new Bolero car not having registration number, having Engine No.- GF74E60660 and Chassis No.- MAIXA-2GEK72E25889. Mahesh Prasad Mehta (since deceased) being a pillion while returning home along with Prakash Mehta who was driving the motorcycle which was dashed by new Bolero car in a rash and negligent manner and as a result Mahesh Prasad Mehta (since deceased) fell towards the right side and his head came under the wheels of said new Bolero car. Mahesh Prasad Mehta (since deceased) sustained serious injuries due to said motor accident and succumbed to injury in course of treatment. 3. An F.I.R got registered on the fardbayan of Murli Prasad Mehta, brother of the deceased under Sections 279/304(A) of IPC. Thereafter, due investigation was done and charge sheet was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. Thereafter, the claimants filed an application u/s 140 and 166 M.V. Act arraying the owner of new Bolero car having Engine No.- GF74E60660 and Chassis No.- MAIXA-2GEK72E25889 and insurer of the said new Bolero car as respondent no.-2. Despite service of notice, owner of new Bolero car did not turn up for enquiry and thus, learned Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against the owner, however insurance company participated in the enquiry and also filed W.S denying claim of claimants on various grounds. 4. In Support of their claim, claimants got examined three witnesses, C.W.-1 Murli Prasad Mehta who happens to be informant and brother of deceased, C.W.-2 Anita Devi who happens to be wife of deceased and C.W.-3 Ramchandra Prasad Mehta. C.W.-1 reiterated the incident and rest two witnesses stated that they were not eye witnesses to the said accident and deposed about the work and monthly income of the deceased. Claimants further brought on record following documents : I. Ext.1 is he F.I.R. of Ichak P.S. Case No.185 of 2007. II. Ext.2 is the charge-sheet of Ichak P.S. Case No.185 of 2007. III. Claimants further brought on record following documents : I. Ext.1 is he F.I.R. of Ichak P.S. Case No.185 of 2007. II. Ext.2 is the charge-sheet of Ichak P.S. Case No.185 of 2007. III. Mark X is the copy of postmortem report of Mahesh Prasad Mehta. IV. Mark X/1 is the copy of certificate of registration of Dumper No.WB-37A-6668; wherein name of registered owner mentioned as Harjeet Singh. V. Mark X/2 is the copy of driving license of Dashrath Mahto. VI. Mark X/3 is the temporary permit of Dumper No. WB-37A-6668. VII. Mark Y is the copy of premium computation table issued by I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company. 5. After analyzing materials available on record, learned Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the ground that the documents filed by the claimants belongs to Dumper having No.- WB 37 A 6668 whereas offending vehicle which found mentioned in the F.I.R and charge sheet was Bolero car and thus, failed to connect the alleged new Bolero car with the said accident. Also, non-examination of rider of motorcycle on which deceased was pillion driver was taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal and therefore, dismissed the claim application. The appellants/claimants being aggrieved preferred this appeal. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that I.A. No. 4290 of 2025 has been preferred under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. for adducing additional evidence before this Court. 7. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that inadvertently the documents of Dumper having No. WB-37A-6668 had been tagged and exhibited instead of new Bolero car in the claim case before the learned Tribunal which is not related to the above stated accident and thus in absence of such policy documents, learned Tribunal repudiated the claim case. However documents of new Bolero car having Engine No.- GF74E60660 and Chassis No.- MAIXA- 2GEK72E25889, which is the offending vehicle, has been brought on record by way of interlocutory application and also, marked as Annexure in the memo of appeal in the instant appeal. 8. On the aforesaid premise, prayer has made on behalf of counsel for the appellants/claimants to remand the matter before the learned Tribunal to decide the claim compensation afresh considering all the documents of the offending vehicle i.e. new Bolero car which has brought before this Court. 9. 8. On the aforesaid premise, prayer has made on behalf of counsel for the appellants/claimants to remand the matter before the learned Tribunal to decide the claim compensation afresh considering all the documents of the offending vehicle i.e. new Bolero car which has brought before this Court. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company fairly submitted that offending vehicle as found mention in F.I.R and charge sheet is a Bolero car not having registration number but it was claimants who brought on record the documents of the said Dumper which was tagged and exhibited before learned Tribunal and failed to establish the above accident. 10. It is further pointed out that appellants/claimants have brought cover-note instead of policy of Bolero car not having registration number before this Court which in no way justify the prayer made for adducing the additional evidence as the matter has not been brought before the learned Tribunal and further raises suspicion about the genuineness of claim made by the appellants/claimants. 11. Despite valid service of notice upon owner of Bolero car (Respondent no.-1 herein), owner has chosen not to participate in the present proceeding. 12. From perusal of record, it transpires that undoubtedly motorcycle on which Mahesh Prasad Mehta (since deceased) was commuting as pillion was dashed by a new Bolero car not having registration number and due to the said accident Mahesh Prasad Mehta succumbed to injury. Copy of charge sheet/final form and FIR is also placed on record which reveals that the Bolero car hit the motorcycle on which deceased was commuting. 13. It also transpires to this Court that claim application has been repudiated by the learned Tribunal in absence of evidence regarding involvement of offending vehicle i.e. Bolero car in the said accident, reason being that the documents of Dumper has been tagged and exhibited. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has filed an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 4290 of 2025 for adducing additional evidence before this Court, which is also annexed in the memo of appeal. 15. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has filed an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 4290 of 2025 for adducing additional evidence before this Court, which is also annexed in the memo of appeal. 15. Record reveals that policy paper of one Bolero car, report of Motor Vehicle inspector and vehicle release paper of the said Bolero car having the same engine number and chassis number has put forth before this Court and thus, there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the fact that the documents adduced by the appellants/claimants before this Court pertains to the said offending Bolero car, which is apparent from its engine number and chassis number. 16. Since, learned Tribunal dismissed the claim case in absence of documents of offending vehicle i.e. Bolero car which found mentioned in the application under Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, FIR and charge sheet and the appellants/claimants are adducing the relevant documents of said Bolero car at this stage and conceding to the fact that documents of one Dumper has been tagged and exhibited inadvertently, during enquiry, instead of Bolero car, therefore this Court is of considered view that an opportunity ought to be given to the appellants/claimants to adduce the evidence and agitate the same before the learned Tribunal in an enquiry and this Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case that this claim application is fit to be remanded to the Tribunal so that it could be decided afresh in the light of proper evidence. 17. Consequently, order dated 12.03.2014 passed in Claim Case No. 32/2008 is hereby set aside and matter is remanded to decide the claim case afresh and with liberty to the parties to adduce their oral evidence and/or documentary evidence qua the said Bolero car, in accordance with law. 18. In view of aforesaid discussions, this matter is remanded to the Tribunal and both parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 18 th August, 2025 and every endeavour shall be made by the Tribunal to conclude the enquiry within three months from the service of notice upon the owner of the offending vehicle. 19. It is also expected from claimants and insurance company that they shall co-operate the Tribunal in early disposal of the enquiry. 20. 19. It is also expected from claimants and insurance company that they shall co-operate the Tribunal in early disposal of the enquiry. 20. Any observation made by this Court shall not be construed as comment on the merit of the enquiry, which is going to be held by the learned Tribunal. 21. Resultantly, the instant Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby disposed of. 22. Accordingly, I.A. No. 4290 of 2025 is also disposed of.