1 2025:CGHC:59426 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 739 of 2025 Vinod Kumar Khute Son Of Banshilal Khunte Aged About 42 Years Resident Of Village - Mudpar 'b', Post- Kuthur, Police Station- Pamgarh, District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 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 Applicant : Mr. Harishankar Patel, Advocate For Respondent no. 1 : Mr. Ravi Kumar Ramteke, Advocate For Respondent no. 3 : Ms. Santoshi Yadav, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.12.08 17:47:35 +0530 2 08.12.2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has filed MAC No. 898 of 2020 against the award passed by Learned Claims Tribunal on an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. During pendency of an appeal, applicant herein filed two applications under Order 41 Rule 27, one on 20.01.2021(wrongly mentioned as 20.01.2010) wherein applicant has placed on record the disability certificate issued by District Medical Board on 22.12.2020 and along with that second application under Order 41 Rule 27 was filed on 17.07.2023, certificate of estimated expenses issued from Khanduja Orthocare Accident Hospital, Bilaspur. Both the documents have been filed in original before this Court for consideration. The aforementioned MAC No. 898 of 2020 was allowed in part and case was remitted back to Learned Claims Tribunal to prove disability certificate and Ex. P. 98, the estimated cost of removing the implants. He contended that this Court while allowing appeal in part has considered applications filed under Order 41 Rule 27 and therefore, to prove disability certificate and certificate of expenditure issued by concerned Hospital, original documents is required which is available in the record of MAC no. 898 of 2020 and, therefore, direction be issued to return back those documents. 3. Learned counsel for respondents submits that in view of limited prayer made by learned counsel for applicant, they are having no objection. 4. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for applicant and perusal of record of MAC No. 898 of 2020 would show that applicant 3 has filed two application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC on 20.01.2021 and 17.07.2023 respectively .Along with two applications applicant has filed disability certificate dated 22.11.2020 and certificate of proposed expenditure dated 15.05.2023 in original. 5. In the facts of case where applicant is required to be prove those documents i.e. permanent disability certificate and the certificate of estimated expenses for removing the implant, I find it appropriate to allow the application. Accordingly, the applications is allowed. 6. Registry is directed to return back original of disability certificate and certificate of expenditure dated 15.05.2023 from record of MAC No. 898 of 2020, retaining photocopies of the same in miscellaneous appeal no. 898 of 2020. 7. Registry is also directed to make this order as part of MAC No. 898 of 2020. 8. Registry is directed to return back the record of Claim Case NO. 1003/2018 to concerned Tribunal forthwith. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) alfiza JUDGE