1 2025:CGHC:24541 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1978 of 2019 1 - Smt. Chandramani Nishad W/o Late Suresh Nishad Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Ravelidih, Police Station Nandini, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rahul Nishad S/o Late Suresh Nishad Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Chandramani Nishad W/o Late Suresh Nishad, R/o Village Ravelidih, Police Station Nandini, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ravi Nishad S/o Late Suresh Nishad Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Chandramani Nishad W/o Late Suresh Nishad, R/o Village Ravelidih, Police Station Nandini, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Kaveri Nishad D/o Late Suresh Nishad Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Chandramani Nishad W/o Late Suresh Nishad, R/o Village Ravelidih, Police Station Nandini, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Silochani W/o Tek Singh Nishad Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Ravelidih, Police Station Nandini, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Tek Singh Nishad S/o Budharu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Ravelidih, Police Station Nandini, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants Versus 1 - Dinesh Kumar Soni S/o Jeevan Lal Soni Aged About 37 Years R/o Karanja Bhilai, Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Driver And Owner Of The Centro Car No. Cg-04, B-8874), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 2 - Ifco Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Shop No. 205, Second Floor, M.M. Silver Bhawan, Infront Of Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No.1, Mahaveer Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Centro Car No. Cg-04, B-8874), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Appellants For Appellants : Mr. Praveen Dhrurandhar, Advocate For Non-appellants : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 16/06/2025 1. 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 19.08.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 473/2018. The learned Claims Tribunal while allowing the claim application in part has awarded a total sum of Rs. 9, 36, 550/-. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 12.02.2018 at about 07:30 P.M., when the appellant’s husband namely Suresh Nishad (since deceased) was standing beside the road, at that time, the offending vehicle i.e. Hyundai Santro bearing registration no. CG 04 B 8874 driven by the Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed Suresh Nishad and caused accident. In the said accident, Suresh suffered serious injuries, he was taken to Hospital in the same car for treatment, but he succumbed to injuries during treatment. Subsequent to the accident, a crime was registered against the Respondent No. 1 bearing Crime No. 161/2018 at P.S. Nandini, District – Durg for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 279, 304 (A), of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3 3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 8,450/- considering the minimum wages fixed for Unskilled Labourer overlooking the pleadings and the evidence that the deceased was earning Rs. 350/- to Rs. 450/- per day. He next contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the age of the deceased to be more than 50 years on the basis of the copy of the Aadhar Card produced by the non-appellants. However, it has not been proved by them as from where and how, they have obtained the said copy of the Aadhar Card wherein, the date of birth of the deceased is mentioned 15.05.1967 whereas, the date of birth of the deceased is 18.09.1982 as mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate issued by the Head Master, Government Middle School, Bodegaon, Block & District – Durg. Claims Tribunal has exhibited the document placed on record by the non-appellants putting the question upon Smt. Chandramani Nishad (AW – 1) with respect to the date of birth mentioned therein which is erroneous. 4. The appellants have filed an application i.e. I.A. No. 01/2024 which is an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for taking additional evidence on record i.e. School Leaving Certificate mentioning the date of birth of the deceased as 18.09.1982, in view of the date of birth mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate, age of the deceased would come to 35 years, 04 months and 25 days on the date of incident. The age of the Appellant No. 1 i.e. wife of the deceased is also 28 years and therefore, also, the date of birth as mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate prima facie appears to be correct. It is submitted that the application I.A. No. 01/2024 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 be allowed and the age of the deceased be taken as 35 years for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 vehemently opposes the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and 4 would submit that learned Clams Tribunal on appreciating the evidence brought on record has passed the impugned award and rightly assessed the age of deceased as 51 years which cannot be find faulted with. The claimants have not submitted any document to prove the age of the deceased. The copy of the School Leaving Certificate is filed for the first before this Court along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 only on 21.02.2024. No reason has been assigned or no justification has been shown stating as to why, the said document could not be placed before the Learned Claims Tribunal in proof of the age of the deceased. In absence thereof, the crucial evidence could not be taken on record. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the claim case. 7. So far as the assessment of the income of the deceased is concerned, the appellants/claimants have not placed on record any admissible piece of evidence with respect to the nature of occupation and income of the deceased. In absence thereof, the learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing the income of the deceased on notional basis taking note of the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and therefore, it does not call for any interference. 8. The learned Claims Tribunal has not added the amount of compensation towards the loss of future prospects which in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 is erroneous. The appellants/claimants are also entitled for addition of the income towards loss of future prospects to the assessed 5 income for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. The amount of compensation awarded on other heads is also on lower side as learned Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium to the Appellant No. 1 and Rs. 25,000/- towards the loss of love and affection to the children, Rs. 25,000/- towards the funeral expenses. The award of the aforementioned amount of compensation is contrary to the guideline issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). The claimants being children and parents of the deceased are also entitled for loss of parental and filial consortium as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC and the amount of compensation requires re-computation. 9. So far as the submission of the counsel for the appellant with respect to the assessment of the age of the deceased to be more than 50 years on the date of accident is concerned, admittedly the document which is relied upon by the learned Claims Tribunal is placed on record by the non-applicants. They have not proved the said document, but the document is exhibited based on the evidence of Appellant No. 1 Smt. Chandramani Nishad (AW – 1). This witness only accepted the mentioning of date of birth in the documents confronted to her. The applicants/claimants have filed copy of the School Leaving Certificate along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The document which is placed on record is also a government document said to issued by the school from where, the deceased is stated to have studied. For award of just and fair compensation, in the opinion of this Court, the document which is 6 placed along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 requires consideration and to be proved. 10.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 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)]. 7 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) “… 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 8 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.” 11. 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 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. 9 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.” 12.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 Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 that the claimants/members of the deceased’s family are to be awarded just and fair compensation and therefore, 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. 13.As the document and the copy of the School Leaving Certificate filed along with the application i.e. IA No. 01/2024 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 grant 10 opportunity to the parties to prove the School Leaving Certificate in accordance with law. 14.The learned Claims Tribunal after granting opportunity to prove the School Leaving Certificate to the respective parties shall pass an award afresh considering the entire evidence, keeping in mind the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), Pranay Sethi (Supra) and Nanu Ram (Supra). Parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 06.08.2025. 15.Registry is directed to send the records of the claim case forthwith along with copy of order. 16.Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey