Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010071132019 2026:GAU-AS:8825 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/993/2020 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MIDDLETON STREET KOLKATA AND ONE OF THE REGIONAL OFFICES KNOWN AS GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-5 ASSAM. VERSUS SRI SUSEN GOGOI AND 2 ORS. S/O- LATE DILIP GOGOI REP. BY MR. LALIT GOGOI S/O- SUNESWAR GOGOI R/O- VILL.- SOTAI GHORPHOLIA GAON P.S. TEOK DIST.- JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785112. 2:BONTI BURAGOHAIN W/O- BISHNU PRASAD BURAGOHAIN R/O- VILL.- MELANG GAYAN GAON P.S. AND DIST.- JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785221. (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-03-H-7594 (TATA NANO CAR). 3:SRI SATYAJIT BURAGOHAIN S/O- SRI BISHNU PRASAD BURAGOHAIN R/O- VILL.- MELANG GAYAN GAON P.S. AND DIST.- JORHAT ASSAM Page No.# 2/7 PIN- 785221. (DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-03-H-7594 (TATA NANO CAR). ------------ Advocate for : MR. R K BHATRA Advocate for : appearing for SRI SUSEN GOGOI AND 2 ORS. Linked Case : MACApp./153/2020 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MIDDLETON STREET, KOLKATA AND ONE OF THE REGIONAL OFFICES KNOWN AS GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI-5, ASSAM. VERSUS SRI SUSEN GOGOI AND 2 ORS S/O- LATE DILIP GOGOI, REP. BY MR. LALIT GOGOI, S/O- SUNESWAR GOGOI, R/O- VILL.- SOTAI GHORPHOLIA GAON, P.S. TEOK, DIST.- JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785112. 2:BONTI BURAGOHAIN W/O- BISHNU PRASAD BURAGOHAIN R/O- VILL.- MELANG GAYAN GAON P.S. AND DIST.- JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785221. (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-03-H-7594 (TATA NANO CAR). 3:SRI SATYAJIT BURAGOHAIN S/O- SRI BISHNU PRASAD BURAGOHAIN R/O- VILL.- MELANG GAYAN GAON P.S. AND DIST.- JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785221. (DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-03-H-7594 (TATA NANO CAR) Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R K BHATRA, MR D BHUYAN Advocate for the Respondent : MRS. K K CHOUDHURY (r-2,3), MR. Y S MANNAN (r-1) Page No.# 3/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER Date : 19.06.2026 Heard Mr. R.K. Bhatra, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mrs. K.K. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. The instant application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the CPC has been filed by the appellants praying for producing additional evidence in the form of Voter ID card of the deceased, which reflects that he was more than 50 years at the relevant time of accident. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that an appeal has been preferred against the impugned Judgment and award dated 18.04.2018 passed by the MACT, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in MAC Case No. 1888/2015. 4. Learned counsels submits that the claimant in the claim petition stated that the age of the deceased was 47 years, whereas upon carrying out investigation by the company it was revealed that as per the Voter ID card of the deceased his age was more than 50 years at the time of accident as the Voter Id shows the age of the deceased as 49 years as on 01.10.2013. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that the said Voter ID card of the deceased could not be produced before the Tribunal at the relevant time and although the counsel dealing with the case before the Tribunal was furnished with the Investigation report, the said investigation report along with the Voter Id was not produced during the trial inadvertently. Page No.# 4/7 6. Learned counsel further submits that by accepting the additional evidence at this stage, this Court would be advancing the cause of justice as the appellant is dealing with public money and the amount of compensation would be reduced if it is established that the deceased was more than 50 years of age. 7. Learned counsel for the claimant/respondent has objected to the prayer of the applicants by stating that the age of the deceased has already been proved by the claimant before the Tribunal by exhibiting the Post-Mortem Report, the Form-54, and the School-Transfer Certificate. He has relied on the case of Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited Vs Boby Bora and Ors. reported in 2022 (3) GLT 211, wherein the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has stated that the general principal regarding order-41 Rule 27 CPC is that the appellate Court should not travel outside the records of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order 41, Rule 27 CPC enables the appellate Court to take additional evidence only in exceptional circumstance. The parties are not entitled as of right to admission of such evidence. The said provision under Order 41 Rule 27 would not apply, when on the basis of the evidence on record the appellate Court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment. The co-ordinate Bench held that the permission to adduce additional evidence is the sole discretion of the appellate Court and is to be used sparingly. 8. Learned counsel for the claimant / respondent prays that the instant application may be dismissed in view of the settled law regarding admission of additional evidence before the appellate Court. 9. This Court has taken into consideration the submissions made by the parties and also perused the authorities relied upon. The provisions of Order 41 Page No.# 5/7 Rule 27 of CPC are reproduced here below:- “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 Court shall record the reason for its admission”. 10. The law is well settled that an appellate Court can allow additional evidence only in exceptional circumstances under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. An admission of such additional evidence is purely discretionary and not a matter of right. The only circumstances when additional evidence may be allowed is i) the trial court refused to admit evidence that ought to have been admitted, ii) the evidence was not within the knowledge of the applicant, iii) despite due diligence the party could not produce the evidence when the trial Page No.# 6/7 court passed an judgment, iv) the appellate court requires the evidence in order to enable it to pronounce the judgment and v) the appellate court requires the evidence for any other substantial cause. 11. This Court is of the view that if the additional evidence sought to be produced removes some doubts and has the direct bearing on the main issue and the cause of justice renders it imperative, only then that application may be allowed. 12. In the instant case, it is the specific stand of the applicant/appellate that the investigation report was available during the trial along with the Voter ID and the same was given to the counsel for the appellant but inadvertently the same was not produced before the Tribunal. Therefore, it cannot be said that the additional evidence was not within the knowledge of the appellant or that even after the exercise of due diligence he could not produce the same. It has been held by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Boby Bora (supra) that the provision under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC does not apply when the appellate court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment on the basis of the evidence on record. In the case of Union of India Vs Ibrahim Uddin and anr. reported in 2012 (8) SCC 148, the hon’ble Supreme Court has stated that it is not the business of the appellate court to supplement the evidence adduced by one party or the other in the lower court. 13. This Court is accordingly of the view that a satisfactory judgment can be passed by this Court even on the basis of the evidence already on record. The appellant/applicant has not been able to show any satisfactory reason for the non production of the voter Id before the Tribunal. Page No.# 7/7 14. In view of the above submissions, the instant application is dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant