Chattisgarh High Court
Vinod Kumar Khunte vs Arvind Burman on 23 June, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:26793
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 898 of 2020
1 - Vinod Kumar Khunte Son Of Banshilal Khunte Aged About 42 Years Resident Of
Village - Mudpar 'b', Post- Kuthur, Police Station- Pamgarh, District - Janjgir-
Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
Versus
1 - Arvind Burman Son Of Suresh Kumar Burman Aged About 24 Years Resident Of
Village - Padaria, Police Station - Shivrinarayan, District - Janjgir-Champa
Chhattisgarh.
2 - Bhuwan Lal Yadav Son Of Khemnath Yadav Aged About 42 Years Resident Of
Ward No. 5, Reddi Camp Bacheli, District-Dantewada Chhattisgarh. Pin 494553,
3 - The Branch Manager Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Branch
Office - C.G. Plaza, Second Floor, Shop No. 8 And 9, Agrasen Chowk, Beside
Telephone Exchange, Bilaspur, Police Station- Civil Line, Tahsil And District-
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. H.S Patel, Advocate
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate along with Ms.
Santoshi Yadav, Advocate
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order On Board
23/06/2025
1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the liability to satisfy the
amount of compensation is upon the Non-Appellants jointly and
severally. Non-Appellants No. 1 & 2 are the drivers and owners of the
SHUBHAM offending vehicle who remained ex parte before the learned Claims
DEY
Digitally
signed by
SHUBHAM
DEY
Tribunal also. As the Respondent No. 3/Insurance company is
represented by a counsel, case be heard finally.
2. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 do not dispute the
submission of counsel for the appellant with regard to fastening of
liability upon the Respondent No. 3.
3. With the consent of parties, case is heard finally.
4. This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimants seeking enhancement of
the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in
its award dated 17.02.2020 passed by the Sixth Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) in MACT
No. 1003/2018. The learned Claims Tribunal while allowing the claim
application in part has awarded a total sum of Rs. 3, 97, 000/-.
5. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 03.10.2018, the appellant was
traveling towards Pamgarh on his motorcycle i.e. Pulsar bearing
registration no. CG 11 AL 8530, when he reached near Pamgarh Rest
House, on Scorprio vehicle bearing registration no. CG 20 C 7777
(hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) driven by the
Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the
appellant and caused accident. In the said accident, appellant suffered
serious injuries, he was taken to Hospital. Subsequent to the accident,
a crime was registered against the Respondent No. 1 bearing Crime
No. 293/2018 at P.S. Pamgarh, District - Janjgir-Champa for the
alleged offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned claims Tribunal
erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. The
learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the appellant as.
Rs. 7,000/- per month only overlooking the nature of occupation as pleaded
in the claim application and stated by the appellant to be working as Mason.
He next contended that the compensation awarded under other heads is also
on lower side, learned Claims Tribunal though considering the document Ex.
P/98, i.e. the estimated cost for removing the implants of Rs. 1,20,000/-
issued by the doctors of Khanduja Hospital, however, erred in awarding Rs.
50,000/- without assigning any reason. He submits that in the
aforementioned facts of the case, the amount of compensation be enhanced
suitably.
7. He further submits that the appellant suffered permanent disability to the
extent of 40% due to motor accidental injuries, however, due to ill-advice, the
appellant could not be able to examine himself by the District Medical Board
and obtained certificate. After passing of award, the appellant appeared
before the District Medical Board and the Medical Board assessed the
permanent disability of 40%. The appellant could not be able to examine the
treating doctor to prove the disability suffered by him. The appellant is a poor
person working as Mason and due to disability he is not able to perform his
work as he was performing with the same strength as he was performing
prior to date of accident i.e. 08.10.2018 and thereby, he suffered loss of
earning capacity.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 vehemently
opposes the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and
would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded just and
fair amount of compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case
and does not call for any interference of this Court.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of
the claim case.
10. 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.
11. From the Discharge Ticket Ex. P/99, it is apparent that the appellant
suffered multiple fracture injuries over both of his legs. He was
operated and rod was implanted. There is certificate issued by the
Doctor mentioning the expenses required for removal of the implant
which shows that the appellant suffered a grievous injuries over both of
his legs. The appellant has filed the Disability Certificate along with an
application i.e. I.A. No. 02/2021 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908. This Disability Certificate was issued by the
doctor on 15.05.2023, the estimated expenditure for removal of the
implant is Rs. 1,20,000/-.
12. 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:
"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
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 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."
13. 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) 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."
14. Considering entirety of the facts of the case, the object of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 being a beneficial piece of legislation and further,
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan
Das (Supra) and Sanjay Kumar Singh (Supra) that the Courts can
allow the application under Order 41 Rule 27, if the Courts require to
pass just and fair orders, I find it appropriate to allow the application
filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is
ordered accordingly. Consequently, the impugned award is set-aside.
15. As the document and the copy of the Disability Certificate filed along
with the application i.e. I.A. No. 02/2021 filed under Order 41 Rule 27
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is required to be proved by
bringing cogent evidence on record, I find it appropriate to set-aside the
impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal and to remit
back the case before the concerned Claims Tribunal to pass an award
afresh after giving opportunity to the parties to prove the Disability
Certificate as also, Ex. P/98, i.e. the estimated cost for removing the
implants in accordance with law.
16. The learned Claims Tribunal after granting opportunity to prove the
Disability Certificate and Ex. P/98, i.e. the estimated cost for removing the
implants to the respective parties shall pass an award afresh
considering the entire evidence brought on record. Parties are directed
to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 11.08.2025.
17. Registry is directed to send the records of the claim case
forthwith along with copy of order.
18. Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-d/--/-/--------/--/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Dey
