1 2026:CGHC:21577 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 728 of 2019 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Divisional OfÏce Dr. Rajendar Prasad Chowk, Parmanand Building G.E. Road, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg ChhatÝsgarh., District : Durg, ChhatÝsgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Amritpal Singh S/o Mehar Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o Smriti Nagar, Plot No. B/667, Street No. 23, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg ChhatÝsgarh. (Claimant/ Injured), District : Durg, ChhatÝsgarh 2 - Rajkishor Roy S/o Sukhendra Roy Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Ranchi Barhi Mohalla, Thana Sukhdev Nagar, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) (Driver Of Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 17 - H / 6665) (Driver), District : Ranchi, Jharkhand 3 - Surendra Prasad S/o Jaishankar Prasad Alias Mushilal Shah Jaishankar Transport, Piskabhore Itki Road, Ranchi, (Jharkhand) (Owner Of Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 17 - H / 6665( (Owner), District : Ranchi, Jharkhand ... Respondent(s) 2 For Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 08.05.2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dated 03/12/2018 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No. 70/2015 whereby compensation of Rs. 19,59,789/- has been awarded in favour of respondent No. 1/claimant for the injuries suffered by him and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant/Insurance Company. Cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC has also been filed by respondent No. 1/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that reasonable time was not granted to the appellant/Insurance Company for adducing evidence and by order dated 28/11/2018, the Claims Tribunal rejected the application filed by the appellant/Insurance Company seeking further time for adducing evidence and after hearing the final argument, the impugned award was passed on 03/12/2018. The 3 additional documents obtained by the appellant/Insurance Company from RTO Latehar (Jharkhand) have been filed before this Court along with application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC which clearly demonstrates that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective license on the date of the accident and he, in fact, possessed a fake license, therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to be exonerated from the liability of payment of compensation. He would further submit that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant enhancement. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1/claimant would submit that accident occurred on 15/03/2012 and the claim application was preferred on 16/12/2013 and the Insurance Company themselves declared before the Claims Tribunal on 26/10/2018 that they do not wish to adduce further evidence and accordingly, their opportunity for adducing evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for final argument on 02/11/2018, however, the matter was adjourned at the request of the Insurance Company on 02/11/2018 and 13/11/2018 and on 28/11/2018, the Insurance Company again sought time for filing additional documents, however, the Claims Tribunal after granting several opportunities to the Insurance Company, refused to grant further time holding that no further time would 4 be granted to the Insurance Company and after hearing final arguments of the parties, passed the impugned award on 03/12/2018, which is absolutely in accordance with law. He would further submit that the application filed by the appellant/Insurance Company under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC cannot be entertained at this stage in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) by LRs. and Anr. v. Abdul Shukoor1 and further it has been held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Gobind Singh and Others v. Union of India and Others2 that the parties do not possess any vested or automatic right to seek admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage, as such, the application filed by the appellant/Insurance Company under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC as well as their appeal, both are liable to be dismissed. He would lastly submit that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is liable to be enhanced under the heads of pain and suffering, attendant’s fee and transportation and special diet, therefore, it may suitably be enhanced. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 1 2025 SCC Online SC 1787 2 2026 SCC Online SC 339 5 Appeal of the appellant/Insurance Company :- 5. So far as the ground raised by learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company with respect to reasonable opportunity for adducing evidence not being given to the appellant/Insurance Company is concerned, it is apparent on the record that on 26/10/2018, the Insurance Company themselves submitted that they do not wish to lead any further evidence and accordingly, their opportunity to lead evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for final argument on 02/11/2018, however, on that day, adjournment was sought by the appellant/Insurance and the matter was then listed on 13/11/2018 and yet again, time was sought by the Insurance Company and ultimately, the matter was listed on 28/11/2018. The Insurance Company again sought time and filed an application stating that they want to adduce additional evidence, therefore, further time may be granted to them, but the Claims Tribunal rejected their application holding that reasonable opportunity has been granted to them for adducing evidence and now at this stage, no further time can be granted and after hearing final arguments of the parties, delivered the impugned award on 03/12/2018, which in my considered opinion, is absolutely in accordance with law as the Insurance Company themselves declared that they do no wish to adduce 6 further evidence and on that account, their opportunity to lead evidence was closed by the Tribunal. 6. 6. So far as the application filed by the appellant/Insurance Company under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC is concerned, the Supreme Court, in the matter of Iqbal Ahmed (supra), has held that before undertaking the exercise of considering whether a party is entitled to lead additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27(1) of the CPC, it would be first necessary to examine the pleadings of such party to gather if the case sought to be set up is pleaded so as to support the additional evidence that is proposed to be brought on record. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the report state as under :- “8. In our opinion, before undertaking the exercise of considering whether a party is entitled to lead additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code, it would be first necessary to examine the pleadings of such party to gather if the case sought to be set up is pleaded so as to support the additional evidence that is proposed to be brought on record. In absence of necessary pleadings in that regard, permitÝng a party to lead additional evidence would result in an unnecessary exercise and such evidence, if led, would be of no consequent as it may not be permissible to take such evidence into consideration. Useful reference in this regard can be made to the decisions in Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal, (2008) 17 SCC 491 : AIR 2009 SC 1103 and Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148. Thus, besides the requirements prescribed by Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code being fulfilled, it would also be necessary for the Appellate Court to consider the pleadings of the party seeking to lead such additional evidence. It is only thereafter on being satisfied that a case as contemplated by the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27(1) 7 of the Code has been made out that such permission can be granted. In absence of such exercise being undertaken by the High Court in the present case, we are of the view that it committed an error in allowing the application moved by the defendant for leading additional evidence. 9. As we have found that the application for leading additional evidence has been considered by the Appellate Court without examining the aspect as to whether the additional evidence proposed to be led was in consonance with the pleadings of the defendant and whether such case had been set up by him coupled with the fact that the additional evidence taken on record has weighed with it while reversing the decree, the matter requires reconsideration by the High Court. Since we find that the matter requires re- consideration at the hands of the High Court afresh, we have not gone into the aspect of delay in deciding the appeal by the High Court as was urged on behalf of the appellants.” 7. Similarly, in the matter of Gobind Singh (supra), it has been held by the Supreme Court that the parties do not possess any vested or automatic right to seek admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage. It has been observed in paragraph 11.4 as under :- “11.4. … Thus, a holistic reading of the aforesaid decision makes it clear that the appellate court’s inquiry, while considering an application for leading additional evidence, is confined to examining whether such evidence is necessary to remove a lacuna in the case. More importantly, the appellate court may permit additional evidence only upon being satisfied that the conditions expressly stipulated under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC are fulfilled. The parties do not possess any vested or automatic right to seek admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage. Consequently, the provision has no application where the appellate court is in a position to render a satisfactory and reasoned judgment on the basis of the evidence already available on record.” 8 8. In the instant case, the appellant/Insurance Company did not avail the opportunity to adduce evidence when it was available to them and they themselves declared before the Claims Tribunal that they do not wish to adduce further evidence and accordingly, their opportunity to adduce evidence was closed. Apparently, the accident occurred on 15/03/2012 and the impugned award was passed on 03/12/2018 i.e. after 5 years and in those five years, the appellant/Insurance Company could not obtain the document which they have filed before this Court along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC which shows grave negligence on the part of the OfÏcers of the Insurance Company. Furthermore, no specific plea has been taken by the Insurance Company in their written statement and the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident and as such, in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Iqbal Ahmed (supra) and Gobind Singh (supra), the application filed by the appellant/Insurance Company under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC also cannot be allowed. I also do not find any merit in this appeal. Cross-appeal of respondent No. 1/claimant :- 9. A careful perusal of the award would show that the Claims Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for pain and 9 suffering, Rs. 15,000/- for attendant’s fee and no compensation at all has been granted for transportation and special diet, however, looking to the grievous injuries suffered by claimant, the compensation awarded under these heads can be enhanced. 10. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is calculating the compensation as stated below :- Heads of Compensation Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court Loss of efÏciency Rs. 12,60,000/- Rs. 12,60,000/- Medical Expenses Rs. 1,44,889/- Rs. 1,44,889/- Pain and Suffering Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- Attendant Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 65,000/- Transportation and Special Diet NIL Rs. 40,000/- Artificial Leg Rs. 3,09,900/- Rs. 3,09,900/- Loss of income during treatment Rs. 1,80,000/- Rs. 1,80,000/- Total Rs. 19,59,789/- Rs. 20,99,789/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 19,59,789/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 20,99,789/-. Hence, the claimant is held entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 1,40,000/-. Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from 10 the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 16/12/2013 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company is hereby dismissed whereas the cross-appeal filed by respondent No. 1/claimant is allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet