Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:26793 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 898 of 2020 1 - Vinod Kumar Khunte Son Of Banshilal Khunte Aged About 42 Years Resident Of Village - Mudpar 'b', Post- Kuthur, Police Station- Pamgarh, District - Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh Versus ... Appellant 1 - Arvind Burman Son Of Suresh Kumar Burman Aged About 24 Years Resident Of Village - Padaria, Police Station - Shivrinarayan, District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. 2 - Bhuwan Lal Yadav Son Of Khemnath Yadav Aged About 42 Years Resident Of Ward No. 5, Reddi Camp Bacheli, District-Dantewada Chhattisgarh. Pin 494553, 3 - The Branch Manager Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office - C.G. Plaza, Second Floor, Shop No. 8 And 9, Agrasen Chowk, Beside Telephone Exchange, Bilaspur, Police Station- Civil Line, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
8. As observed and held by this Court in A. Andisamy Chettiar v. A. Subburaj Chettiar [A. Andisamy Chettiar v. A. Subburaj Chettiar, (2015) 17 SCC 713 : (2017) 5 SCC (Civ) 514] , the admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the appellate court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. It is further observed that the true test, therefore is, whether the appellate court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced.” 8 14. Considering entirety of the facts of the case, the object of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being a beneficial piece of legislation and further, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Das (Supra) and Sanjay Kumar Singh (Supra) that the Courts can allow the application under Order 41 Rule 27, if the Courts require to pass just and fair orders, I find it appropriate to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is ordered accordingly. Consequently, the impugned award is set-aside. 15. As the document and the copy of the Disability Certificate filed along with the application i.e. I.A. No. 02/2021 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is required to be proved by bringing cogent evidence on record, I find it appropriate to set-aside the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal and to remit back the case before the concerned Claims Tribunal to pass an award afresh after giving opportunity to the parties to prove the Disability Certificate as also, Ex. P/98, i.e. the estimated cost for removing the implants in accordance with law. 16. The learned Claims Tribunal after granting opportunity to prove the Disability Certificate and Ex. P/98, i.e. the estimated cost for removing the implants to the respective parties shall pass an award afresh considering the entire evidence brought on record. Parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 11.08.2025. 17. Registry is directed to send the records of the claim case forthwith along with copy of order. 18. Certified copy as per rules. Dey Sd/-d/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge
Arguments
: Mr. H.S Patel, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate along with Ms. Santoshi Yadav, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 23/06/2025 1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon the Non-Appellants jointly and severally. Non-Appellants No. 1 & 2 are the drivers and owners of the offending vehicle who remained ex parte before the learned Claims SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 Tribunal also. As the Respondent No. 3/Insurance company is represented by a counsel, case be heard finally. 2. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 do not dispute the submission of counsel for the appellant with regard to fastening of liability upon the Respondent No. 3. 3. With the consent of parties, case is heard finally. 4. This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 17.02.2020 passed by the Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in MACT No. 1003/2018. The learned Claims Tribunal while allowing the claim application in part has awarded a total sum of Rs. 3, 97, 000/-. 5. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 03.10.2018, the appellant was traveling towards Pamgarh on his motorcycle i.e. Pulsar bearing registration no. CG 11 AL 8530, when he reached near Pamgarh Rest House, on Scorprio vehicle bearing registration no. CG 20 C 7777 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) driven by the Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the appellant and caused accident. In the said accident, appellant suffered serious injuries, he was taken to Hospital. Subsequent to the accident, a crime was registered against the Respondent No. 1 bearing Crime No. 293/2018 at P.S. Pamgarh, District – Janjgir-Champa for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned claims Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. The learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the appellant as. 3 Rs. 7,000/- per month only overlooking the nature of occupation as pleaded in the claim application and stated by the appellant to be working as Mason. He next contended that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side, learned Claims Tribunal though considering the document Ex. P/98, i.e. the estimated cost for removing the implants of Rs. 1,20,000/- issued by the doctors of Khanduja Hospital, however, erred in awarding Rs. 50,000/- without assigning any reason. He submits that in the aforementioned facts of the case, the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably. 7. He further submits that the appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 40% due to motor accidental injuries, however, due to ill-advice, the appellant could not be able to examine himself by the District Medical Board and obtained certificate. After passing of award, the appellant appeared before the District Medical Board and the Medical Board assessed the permanent disability of 40%. The appellant could not be able to examine the treating doctor to prove the disability suffered by him. The appellant is a poor person working as Mason and due to disability he is not able to perform his work as he was performing with the same strength as he was performing prior to date of accident i.e. 08.10.2018 and thereby, he suffered loss of earning capacity. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 vehemently opposes the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded just and fair amount of compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case and does not call for any interference of this Court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the claim case. 4 10. The appeal under which, the application is filed i.e. provisions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Act, 1988) is a beneficial piece of legislation. It is the duty of the Court and the Tribunal to award just and fair compensation considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Nature of injuries suffered by the appellant as mentioned in Discharge Ticket Ex. P/99 is not in dispute. 11. From the Discharge Ticket Ex. P/99, it is apparent that the appellant suffered multiple fracture injuries over both of his legs. He was operated and rod was implanted. There is certificate issued by the Doctor mentioning the expenses required for removal of the implant which shows that the appellant suffered a grievous injuries over both of his legs. The appellant has filed the Disability Certificate along with an application i.e. I.A. No. 02/2021 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This Disability Certificate was issued by the doctor on 15.05.2023, the estimated expenditure for removal of the implant is Rs. 1,20,000/-. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur Vs. Bhagwan Das (Dead) by LRs. (2008) 8 SCC 511, while dealing with the issue of taking additional evidence at the appellate stage under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, has observed thus: “13. Though the general rule is that ordinarily the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and additional evidence, whether oral or documentary is not admitted but Section 107 CPC, which carves out an exception to the general rule, enables an appellate court to take additional 5 evidence or to require such evidence to be taken subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed. These conditions are prescribed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Nevertheless, the additional evidence can be admitted only when the circumstances as stipulated in the said Rule are found to exist. The circumstances under which additional evidence can be adduced are: (i) the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted [clause (a) of sub-rule (1)], or (ii) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within the knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed [clause (aa), inserted by Act 104 of 1976], or (iii) the appellate court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause [clause (b) of sub-rule (1)]. 14. It is plain that under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 Order 41 CPC, with which we are concerned in the instant case, evidence may be admitted by an appellate authority if it “requires” to enable it to pronounce judgment “or for any other substantial cause”. The scope of the Rule, in particular of clause (b) was examined way back in 1931 by the Privy Council in Parsotim Thakur v. Lal Mohar Thakur [AIR 1931 PC 143] . While observing that the provisions of Section 107 as elucidated by Order 41 Rule 27 are clearly not intended to allow litigant, who has been unsuccessful in the lower court, to patch up the weak parts of his case and fill up omissions in the court of appeal, it was observed as follows : (AIR p. 148) 6 “… Under clause (1)(b) it is only where the appellate court ‘requires’ it (i.e. finds it needful) that additional evidence can be admitted. It may be required to enable the court to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause, but in either case it must be the court that requires it. This is the plain grammatical reading of the sub-clause. The legitimate occasion for the exercise of this discretion is not whenever before the appeal is heard a party applies to adduce fresh evidence, but ‘when on examining the evidence as it stands some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent’.” 15. Again in K. Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy [AIR 1963 SC 1526 : (1964) 2 SCR 35] a Constitution Bench of this Court while reiterating the aforenoted observations in Parsotim case [AIR 1931 PC 143] pointed out that the appellate court has the power to allow additional evidence not only if it requires such evidence “to enable it to pronounce judgment” but also for “any other substantial cause”. There may well be cases where even though the court finds that it is able to pronounce judgment on the state of the record as it is, and so, it cannot strictly say that it requires additional evidence “to enable it to pronounce judgment”, it still considers that in the interest of justice something which remains obscure should be filled up so that it can pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. Thus, the question whether looking into the documents, sought to be filed as additional evidence, would be necessary to pronounce judgment in a more satisfactory manner, has to be considered by the Court at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits.” 13. In the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand (2022) 7 SCC 217, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under :- “7. It is true that the general principle is that the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order 41 Rule 7 27CPC enables the appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. It may also be true that the appellate court may permit additional evidence if the conditions laid down in this Rule are found to exist and the parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. However, at the same time, where the additional evidence sought to be adduced removes the cloud of doubt over the case and the evidence has a direct and important bearing on the main issue in the suit and interest of justice clearly renders it imperative that it may be allowed to be permitted on record, such application may be allowed. Even, one of the circumstances in which the production of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27CPC by the appellate court is to be considered is, whether or not the appellate court requires the additional evidence so as to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause of like nature.