1 CGHC010354172023 2026:CGHC:40663 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1855 of 2023 1 - The United India Insurance Company Limited L.I.C. Building Pandri, Raipur (C.G.), Through Authorized Signatory, Office In Charge T.P. Hub United India Insurance Company Limited, L.I.C. Building, Magharpara Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) ...Appellant(s) versus 1 - Ramjatan S/o Pramod Sai Aged About 30 Years Caste - Kanwar, R/o Village Jujhgu Post - Kurdeg, P.S. And Tehsil - Bagicha District Jashpur (C.G.),...(Claimant) 2 - Kamal S/o Pramod Sai Aged About 25 Years Caste - Kanwar, R/o Village Jujhgu Post - Kurdeg, P.S. And Tehsil - Bagicha District Jashpur (C.G.) 3 - Ind Kunvar Wd/o Pramod Sai Aged About 48 Years Caste - Kanwar, R/o Village Jujhgu Post - Kurdeg, P.S. And Tehsil - Bagicha District Jashpur (C.G.) 4 - Kumar Bail Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Katu Kotail Komapan Kadu, P.S. Thammamapati, District Salem Gangavali (Tamil Nadu), C/o Ashok Yadav Tehsil Chowk Bagicha, District Jashpur (C.G.),(Driver) 5 - Suresh Subramaniyam S/o Subramaniyam Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Trichama, P.S. Trichama, District Nayavaal (Tamil Nadu), Residence 07 R.C.C. 206/261 SGM Road - Chamrajpet Banglore (Karnatka),(Owner) ... Respondent(s) BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.09.18 17:39:31 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. B. N. Nande, Advocate For Respondents : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board 17.09.2026 1. Heard on I.A. No.03/2023 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for taking additional documents on record. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant–Insurance Company assailing the award dated 24.06.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur (CG), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 57/2022, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.12,31,704/- on account of the death of Pramod Sai, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 01.03.2021. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal, while passing the impugned award, has assessed the age of the deceased at 50 years. It is further submitted that, as per the Aadhaar Card of the deceased Pramod, which has been annexed with the application, his date of birth was 01.01.1967. The date of the accident was 01.03.2021 and the deceased succumbed to his injuries on 03.03.2021. Thus, according to the appellant, the deceased was aged about 54 years, 2 months and 2 days at the time of the accident. It is, therefore, contended that the Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 13, whereas, considering the age of the deceased, the appropriate 3 multiplier would be 11. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the aforesaid document be taken on record and the compensation be recalculated by applying the multiplier of 11 instead of 13. 4. None appears on behalf of the respondents. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the record with due care. 6. Before considering the prayer made in the application, it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which read thus: 27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court. – (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if - (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or [(aa) 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 decree appealed against was passed, or] (b) 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, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. 4 (2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission. 7. In the present case, the sole ground advanced by learned counsel for the appellant in support of the application is that the Insurance Company did not have possession of the aforesaid document earlier and that, having subsequently obtained the same, it now seeks to bring the document on record. 8. However, the reason stated by learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company does not fall within the ambit of the provisions contained in Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the application (I.A. No.03/2023) filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not found to be maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. 9. So far as the challenge to the age of the deceased is concerned, the Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence brought on record, has determined the age of the deceased at 50 years. Hence, this Court does not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal with regard to the age of the deceased so as to warrant interference in appeal. 10. Consequently, the contention of the appellant seeking application of a different multiplier on the basis of the Aadhaar Card, which has not been taken on record as additional evidence, cannot be accepted. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. 12. The record of the Tribunal, along with a copy of this order, be 5 sent back forthwith for information, compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai