1 2025:CGHC:35763 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 215 of 2021 • United India Insurance Company Limited, Anand Bhawan, P.O. Adityapur, District Jamshedpur(Jharkhand) And Local Office Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Through Its Authorised Authority, Manager, T.P. Hub, Divisional Office, 1st Floor, LIC Building, Magarpara Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Non-applicant No.3). ... Appellant versus 1. Smt. Savita Das, Wd/o Late Bhagwandas Vaishnav, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Tapkara, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (Applicant No.1). 2. Prakash Kumar Das, S/o Late Bhagwandas Vaishnav, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Tapkara, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (Applicant No.2). 3. Legal Heir Of Prasann Kumar Das (Dead) R/o Village Tapkara, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (Applicant No.3). 3(A) Smt. Pratiksha Das, Wd/o Prasann Kumar Das, R/o Village Tapkara, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 3(B) Deep Shikha, D/o Late Prasann Kumar Das, Aged About 13 Years Minor, Through Mother Smt. Pratiksha Das (Respondent No.3A), R/o Village Tapkara, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Sardar Indrajeet Singh, S/o Sardar Jogender Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Kalimati Road, House No.126, Sakchi, Jamshedpur, District Jamshedpur, Jharkhand (Non-applicant No.1). 5. Sardar Vichettar Singh, S/o Sardar Pargat Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Gurudwara Road, Kalimati Sakchi, Jamshedpur, District Jamshedpur, Jharkhand (Non-applicant No.2). 2 6. Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch, Office Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Motor Cycle). 7. Shri Rambhajan Das, S/o Late Ram Milan Das, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Village And P.O.- Tapkara, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (Non-applicant No.5). Note:- (Smt. Rambha Devi, W/o- Shri. Rambhajan Das, Aged 68 Years, R/o Village And P.O.- Tapkara, Tahsil- Kunkuri, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. (Abated Due To Death)(Legal Heir/ Representative Of Deceases Smt. Rambha Devi, Shri Rambhajan Das- Respondent No.7 Is Already On The Record)., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Divyanand Patel, counsel appears on behalf of Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : None appears, though served. For Respondents No.4 & 5 : Reported to be unserved. For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 24/07/2025 1. Appellant/insurance company has filed this appeal challenging the impugned award dated 14.12.2020 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.38/2007, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal allowed an application seeking compensation filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”), awarded Rs.35,95,850/- as total compensation. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking enhancement of compensation of 3 Rs.35,95,850/- pleading therein that on 03.02.2004 Bhagwan Das Vaishnav was travelling on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.CG- 14-ZC-0223 and returning back to his house at Tapkara. At about 7:30 pm, when he reached near Village Charaidand one truck (trailor) bearing Registration No.HR-38-7912 driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle and caused accident. Bhagwan Das Vaishnav struck below the truck and he skid to some distance, he suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries suffered by him. Claimants were dependent upon income of the deceased and after his death, they are suffering great financial crisis. 3. The non-applicant No.1 & 2 did not appear before the Claims Tribunal and they were proceeded ex parte. 4. Non-applicant No.3/insurance company submitted reply to the claim application denying the facts pleaded therein. It was further pleaded that the offending vehicle truck (trailor) was not insured by the company from the office at Jamshedpur and further defence was taken that the relevant documents of the offending vehicle like: permit, fitness and license is not submitted in the office of the insurance company and prayed for dismissal of the claim against it. 5. Non-applicant No.4/Oriental Insurance Company, insurer of the motorcycle also submitted reply denying the facts pleaded in the claim application and it is further pleaded that the motorcycle was not insured by the non-applicant No.4 and prayed for deletion of the name of non- applicant No.4. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal framed six issues for consideration, including issue of contributory negligence and also whether the policy of the 4 truck (trailor) is forged. Claims Tribunal decided the issue with regard to the forged policy and contributory negligence as not proved, allowed the application in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.10,36,658/-. 7. The award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal dated 31.07.2013 was put to challenge by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation as also by non-applicant No.3/insurance company in MAC No.228/2014 & MAC No.923/2013 respectively. Both the claim cases were heard together and disposed of by order dated 23.06.2020. Division Bench of this Court while considering the grounds raised by the appellant/insurance company therein that the address as mentioned in the cause title of the claim application of the appellant/insurance company is not correctly mentioned, in view of the other address as mentioned in the claim application in subsequent paragraph has allowed the appeal and remanded back the case to the Claims Tribunal for deciding the claim application afresh after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to all the parties. 8. Perusal of the record would show that after remand of the case, claimants have made submission that they do not want to examine any further witness. On behalf of the non-applicant No.3/insurance company, submission was made that they will examine two witness in addition to the witness already examined. In earlier proceedings, on the date fixed for recording of the evidence, the appellant/insurance company examined only witness Vijay Kumar, the Administrative Officer of United India Insurance Company Adityapur, District Saraikela Kharsava (Jharkhan) and closed its evidence. This witness proved the 5 premium register of the dates from 25.01.2004 to 30.01.2001 as Ex.D/21, no other document has been produced by the said witness. 9. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidence in paras 22 to 27 has considered the issue of “whether the policy issued in favour of offending vehicle was forged” and recorded a finding as ‘not proved’ observing that the documentary evidence, in view of the grounds raised is produced.” The Claims Tribunal considered that the witness Vijay Kumar, who was examined was not posted in the office of the non- applicant No.3 at Adityapur, District Jamshedpur, he has not brought the entire register of accepting premium, but have produced only two pages of the register. The register is a fixed register and the pages of the register could not be taken out, the policy which was seized forming part of the record bears seal of the company mentioning the address of Anand Bhawan, Post Adityapur, District Jameshedpur, Jharkhand. Though the witness Vijay Kumar had stated that the office of the company was not at Anand Bhawan, Adityapur but at Amar Bhavan, however, the witness in his evident further stated that he can make correct statement after looking to the documents and also made statement that he was not posted in the office of United India Insurance Company Office at Adityapur in the year 2004. He stated that time to time office shifted at different places. He also stated that one complaint was made to the police, but had not submitted the copy of complaint before the Claims Tribunal. The witness Vijay Kumar in his evidence further admitted that the seal, which is affixed in the insurance policy is of United India Insurance Company, Anand Bhawan, Post Adityapur, District Jamshedpur (Jharkhand). 6 10. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant/insurance company filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 along with the copy of complaint submitted before the Superintendent of Police. The affidavit of Kishore Kumar Sinha and copy of postal receipt dated 10.09.2020. Office of Superintendent of Police and the office of appellant are at Adityapur, however, the appellant did not submit copy of complaint/application in the office of SP personally or through any messenger, but have sent the same through registered post. The application/complaint stated to have been sent through post on 10.09.2020 is, after remand of case. The claim case was decided on 14.12.2020, but the copy of complaint was not produce before the Claims Tribunal for the reasons best known by the non-applicant No.3. The claim case was decided on 14.12.2020, the appeal was filed on 12.03.2021 along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC to take additional evidence on record, however, at this stage also the appellant/insurance company has not made any statement as to the status of the complaint, whether it was received by the office of Superintendent of Police, if yes, then what steps have been taken. It was for the appellant/insurance company to make part of the proceedings of this appeal, proceeding/document of status of their complaint on the date of filing of this appeal or with application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC in which, it utterly failed. Further, the evidence of the NAW-3(2) Vijay Kumar would show that the company got the knowledge of Article-A the Insurance Policy to be forged and fabricated in the year 2004 itself, when police seized the document, but it has not taken any step and initiated any proceeding in that regard till 10.09.2020. The appellant/insurance company failed to produce any documentary evidence before the Claims Tribunal to show what steps 7 have been taken by them after getting the knowledge that the insurance policy is forged. This shows careless attitude of the company in not pursuing the grounds available to them, and therefore, this Court does not find any error or infirmity in the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal recording a finding that the non-applicant No.3/appellant insurance company failed to prove the fact that the insurance policy Article A to be forged and fabricated document. 11. Perusal of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, would show that no specific ground has been taken assigning reasons as to why the document sought to be produced as additional evidence at appellate stage, could not be produced before the Claims Tribunal during trial/enquiry. Acceptance of additional evidence submitted along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC can be, only when the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence be produced by him at the time when the decreed appeal was against passed. No such explanation is offered in the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Jagdish Prasad Patel (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Another Versus Shivnath and Others, reported in (2019) 6 SCC 82, while considering the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC has observed thus in para 29 & 30, which as under:- “29. Under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, production of additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, is permitted only under three 8 circumstances which are: (I) where the trial Court had refused to admit the evidence though it ought to have been admitted; (II) the evidence was not available to the party despite exercise of due diligence; and (III) the appellate Court required the additional evidence so as to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause of like nature. An application for production of additional evidence cannot be allowed if the appellant was not diligent in producing the relevant documents in the lower court. However, in the interest of justice and when satisfactory reasons are given, the court can receive additional documents. 30. Union of India Versus Ibrahim Uddin & Another, (2012) 8 SCC 148, this Court held as under (SCC pp.167-68 & 170, paras 36-37, 40 & 47) :- 36. 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 27 CPC enables the appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. The appellate court may permit additional evidence only and only if the conditions laid down in this Rule are found to exist. The parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. Thus, the provision does not apply, when on the basis of 9 the evidence on record, the appellate court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment. The matter is entirely within the discretion of the court and is to be used sparingly. Such a discretion is only a judicial discretion circumscribed by the limitation specified in the Rule itself. (Vide K. Venkataramiah versus A. Seetharam Reddy, AIR 1963 SC 1526, Municipal Corpn., Greater Bombay versus Lala Pancham, AIR 1965 SC 1008, Soonda Ram versus Rameshwarlal, (1975) 3 SCC 698 and Syed Abdul Khader versus Rami Reddy (1979) 2 SCC 601). 37. The appellate court should not ordinarily allow new evidence to be adduced in order to enable a party to raise a new point in appeal. Similarly, where a party on whom the onus of proving a certain point lies fails to discharge the onus, he is not entitled to a fresh opportunity to produce evidence, as the court can, in such a case, pronounce judgment against him and does not require any additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment. (Vide Haji Mohammed Ishaq versus Mohd. Iqbal and Mohd. Ali and Co., (1978) 2 SCC 493). xxx xxx xxx 40. The inadvertence of the party or his inability to understand the legal issues involved or the wrong advice of a 10 pleader or the negligence of a pleader or that the party did not realise the importance of a document does not constitute a “substantial cause” within the meaning of this Rule. The mere fact that certain evidence is important, is not in itself a sufficient ground for admitting that evidence in appeal. xxx xxx xxx 47. 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.” 13. For the foregoing discussions on the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, as no explanation is offered/grounds have been pleaded for not producing the evidence before the Tribunal, I do not find any good ground to allow the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and it is accordingly dismissed. 14. Consequently, the ground raised by the appellant/ insurance company is not sustainable and is accordingly rejected. 15. So far as the second submission made by the counsel for the appellant/insurance company that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in applying deduction of 1/4th instead of 1/3rd, the submission for counsel for the claimant is that initially in the claim application, the widow and 11 two sons have been made as claimant and the parents of the deceased were impleaded as non-applicants No.5 & 6, however, during pendency of the claim application, non-applicant No.6 died. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the claimants are widow, daughter-in- law (wife of Prasann Kumar) minor daughter of the deceased son Prasanna Kumar Das and son Prakash Kumar. 16. In the opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal has not erred in applying the deduction of 1/4th as the object of the Act of 1988 is to award just compensation to the legal representatives/dependents of the deceased. 17. For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA NIRALA