1 CGHC010200702020 2026:CGHC:42261 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1036 of 2020 1. Smt. Minal Singh Wd/o Late Vinay Kumar Singh Aged About 37 Years R/o Tiwari Building Road, Kedarpur, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 2. Rajwardhan Singh S/o Late Vinay Kumar Singh Aged About 10 Years (Minor), Through Natural Guardian Mother Minal Singh, R/o Tiwari Building Road, Kedarpur, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3. Smt. Bindu Singh Wd/o Late Lalbabu Singh Aged About 60 Years R/o Tiwari Building Road, Kedarpur, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellants-claimants versus 1. Vikram Singh S/o Janardan Singh Aged About 34 Years Occupation Driver Of Vehicle, R/o Village Sargawa (Majhlipara) Police Station Gandhinagar, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 2. Upendra Kumar Singh S/o Karmu Ram Kanwar Occupation Owner Of Vehicle, R/o Village Dumarbhawna, Police Station And Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Owner of Truck No. C.G. 04-ZC-0369). 3. Branch Manager S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Pujari Chambers, 4th Floor, Pachpedi Naka, Nearby Pujari Park, Dhamtari Road, Raipur, District Raipur SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date: 2026.10.01 10:44:50 +0530 2 Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Pajero Vehicle No. C.G.15- C.W.9099)., 4. Akbar Ansari S/o Aklak Ahmad @ Mohd. Ali Aged About 42 Years R/o Hospital Colony, Police Station And Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.1, 3 & 4 : None For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Devashish Biswas, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 28/09/2026 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 11.12.2019 passed by learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.91/2017. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that appellants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.3,11,00,000/- on account of death of Raja alias Vinay Singh, husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant No.2 and 3, in a motor vehicular accident occurred on 09.01.2017 near Panchanan Hotel at Ambikapur-Pratappur Main Road, when the truck bearing registration mark CG04-ZC-0369, driven in a rash and negligent manner by non-applicant No.1, badly dashed Pajero Vehicle of Raja alias Vinay Singh which resulted in his spontaneous death. It was further pleaded that at the time of 3 accident, deceased was 37 years of age and was proprietor of M/s LBS Company and earning Rs.1,20,000/- per month. 3. Learned Claims Tribunal after considering the evidence, oral and documentary, brought on record by the parties, particularly that there was no documentary evidence relating to income of deceased which deceased was earning, concluded that deceased was an unskilled labour and by taking his income on notional basis at Rs.4500/- per month, awarded total compensation of Rs.8,26,000/- to appellants. Liability to satisfy the award has been fastened upon respondents No.1, 2 and 4 herein, jointly and severally. Aggrieved with quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement. 4. During pendency of this appeal, appellants have filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for taking on record Income Tax returns relating to the income of the deceased. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal taking monthly income of deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month only. She submits that the deceased was an income tax payee and copies of income tax return and this fact was not within the knowledge of appellant No.1 at the time of filing of application 4 for grant of compensation. However, during pendency of appeal before this Court, appellant No.1 came across the income tax returns filed by her deceased husband through Chartered Accountant for the financial year 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and therefore, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed for taking income tax returns on record. She submits that application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC be allowed, income tax returns, which are prior to the date of accident i.e. 1.9.2017, be taken on record and the impugned award be modified and enhanced it by redetermining income of deceased. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 opposes submissions of learned counsel for appellants and submits that additional evidence filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC cannot be taken into consideration as appellants failed to produce the same before the learned Claims Tribunal during proceeding of claim case. Necessary ingredients of Order41 Rule 27 of CPC are not made out and thus this application may not be allowed. He further submits that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded just and fair amount of compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case and the same does not call for any interference. 7. None appeared on behalf of respondent No.1, 2 and 4. 5 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the claim case. 9. The appeal under which, the application is filed i.e. provisions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Act, 1988) is a beneficial piece of legislation. It is the duty of the Court and the Tribunal to award just and fair compensation considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Nature of injuries suffered by the appellant as mentioned in Discharge Ticket Ex. P/99 is not in dispute. 10. Perusal of impugned award would reveal that since the claimants failed to produce any clinching and admissible piece of evidence showing income of deceased, the Claims Tribunal has notionally assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.4500/- per month. From the income tax returns filed along with application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, it is apparent that the income tax return by the deceased for the assessment year 2016-17 indicates gross total annual income of Rs.12,09,230/-. 11. 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: 6 “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)]. 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 7 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 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 8 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.” 12. 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. 8. As observed and held by this Court in A. Andisamy Chettiar v. A. Subburaj Chettiar [A. Andisamy Chettiar v. A. Subburaj Chettiar, (2015) 9 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.” 13. Undoubtedly, the income tax return is a statutory document on which reliance can be placed to determine the annual income of the deceased. In case at hand, income tax returns, though not produced before the learned Claims Tribunal and brought on record for the first time in the present appeal, is material evidence regarding annual income of the deceased. Its evidentiary value, therefore, cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground that it was not filed before the Claims Tribunal and the same may be considered for the purpose of assessing actual income of unfortunate deceased in order to make just and proper assessment of the loss of dependency, subject to its admissibility and satisfaction of the Court as to its genuineness. 10 14. Considering the entirety of the facts of the case, the object of the Act of 1988 being a beneficial piece of legislation, claimants to be awarded just compensation and the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Das (Supra) and Sanjay Kumar Singh (Supra). I find it appropriate to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and to take income tax returns annexed with it on record. It is ordered accordingly. 15. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Claims Tribunal concerned for deciding the claim case afresh in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 29.10.2026. Registry is directed to send the records of the claim case forthwith along with copy of the order. 16. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/--/-/--------/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-