Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010035162023 2026:GAU-AS:8773 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/522/2024 TAFIR ALI @ MD. TAFAR ALI S/O MD. MOHOR ALI @ MD. MAHAR UDDIN THE CASE IS REPRESENTED BY FATHER OF THE INJURED NAMELY MD. MOHAR ALI @ MD. MAHAR UDDIN S/O LATE AMED ALI PERMANENET RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SIMLAI PATHAR P.S.- LANKA DIST.- LANKA ASSAM. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT- AMTOLA BYRNIHAT P.O. AND P.S.- SONAPUR DIST.- KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM. VERSUS BISTARNING KHYLLAIT AND ANR. S/O TRUN RYNTATHIANG R/O 147 NONGLYPUT MAIRANG WEST KHASI HILLS P.O.- MEGHALAYA MEGHALAYA PIN- 793120. Page No.# 2/6 2:THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER DON BOSCO POINT (MAIN ROAD) SHILLONG MEGHALAYA PIN- 793003. ------------ Advocate for : MISS. A BARUAH Advocate for : MR. M DUTTA appearing for BISTARNING KHYLLAIT AND ANR. BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER 18/06/2026 Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. S. Baruah. Also heard Sr. Counsel, Mr. M. Dutta, assisted by Mr. L. Deka, for the United India Insurance Company/Respondent. 2. The present application under Order 41 Rule 27 R/W Section 151 of the CPC has been filed by the appellant/applicant praying for producing additional evidence in the form of Disability Certificate dated 14.10.2019. 3. The applicant herein submits that an appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the Judgment and Award dated 17.11.2022 passed by the learned MACT No.3, Kamrup(M), Guwahati in MAC Case No.955/2018. 4. It is submitted that during the trial before the tribunal, it was held that there was no disability certificate whereas there was disability certificate issued by the Joint Director of Health Services, Nagaon District to the minor injured boy namely Md. Tafir Ali Alliaz @ Md. Tafar Ali on 14.10.2019 quantifying the disability at 80% in respect of his right leg due to RTA. Page No.# 3/6 5. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that the father of the injured boy is not well educated and works as a daily laborer and so he was not aware of the fact that the document dated 14.10.2019 is a disability certificate which is an important document in the injury case. Hence, the said disability certificate was not submitted at the time of submitting evidence on affidavit on 25.11.2019 and 09.12.2021. It is further submitted that the counsel for the appellant was also not aware about the existence of the disability certificate till the filing of the instant application because the applicant did not inform the counsel about the disability certificate as he himself was not aware about the certificate. Therefore it is submitted that the non production of the disability Certificate before the tribunal was not intentional nor was it deliberate. 6. The applicant states that the disability certificate dated 14.10.2019 is an important document to assess the appropriate compensation in respect of actual loss suffered by the injured person who has lost capacity to walk without support and which is required to be considered for assessment of appropriate compensation. However, due to lack of knowledge and bonafide mistake the applicant failed to bring the said disability Certificate on record during the proceeding before the tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for the applicant prays that the applicant/ appellant may be allowed the produce the disability certificate as additional evidence under the provisions of order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC r/w Section 151 of CPC and further submits that if the production is not allowed, the applicant will suffer irreparable loss and injustice will be caused. 8. Per Contra the learned Senior counsel for the insurer/Respondent submits that the alleged disability certificate was issued on 14.10.2019 and the evidence Page No.# 4/6 of the PWs was recorded on 25.11.2019 and 09.12.2021 during which time the said certificate was already in existence. However, the claimants failed to produce the certificate. Moreover, the disability certificate does not indicate the actual permanent disability and to what extent the functioning of the injured person has been affected by the Disability. Further the doctor who issued the certificate also needs to be examined. Learned Senior counsel therefore submits that he should be given an opportunity to cross examined the claimant on the disability certificate and any other witness who may be examined to prove the certificate. 9. Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is reproduced herein below for the sake of convenience. “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. (2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Page No.# 5/6 Court shall record the reason for its admission.” 10. The appellants herein had specifically pleaded that the disability certificate was issued on 14.10.2019, however due to lack of knowledge and bonafide mistake the certificate was not produced before the tribunal. It is also stated that the counsel for the appellant was not aware about the existence of the certificate as the claimant did not tell him about the existence of the same. In the case of Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148, the Hon’ble supreme Court held that additional evidence can be admitted only when the court itself requires it to pronounce judgment or when a party was prevented from producing it earlier for valid reasons. Mere inadvertence or strategic omission is insignificant. 11. In the instant case this Court has observed that the Disability Certificate was never produced before the tribunal. Moreover no doctor was also examined during the proceedings to ascertain the degree of disability suffered by the injured person. The tribunal also did not try to ascertain as to whether the injured would require any compensation under the head of future treatment or loss of amenities. It is also the view of this Court that the admission of the additional evidence with regard to the Disability Certificate would enable the tribunal to arrive at a just and proper finding. 12. In view of the above fact and circumstances, the instant application is allowed. And the copy of the Disability Certificate dated 14.10.2019 issued by the Joint Director of Health Services, Nagaon, is allowed to be produced as additional evidence in the connected MAC Appeal No. 52/2023 and consequently before the tribunal. Page No.# 6/6 13. The I.A stands disposed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant