[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

United India Insurance Company Limited vs Samaru Sai on 23 March, 2026

                                 1




                                              2026:CGHC:13687


                                                           NAFR

        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                     MAC No. 1055 of 2020


1 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its
Divisional Manager , Divisional Office Near Kumkum Hotel,
Ambikapur , District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja
(Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
                                                     ... Appellant


                              versus


1 - Samaru Sai S/o Kailash Aged About 58 Years Occupation
Agriculture And Bussiness, R/o Godaripara, Azad Nagar,
Chirmiri , Hal Mukam West Chirmiri Podi, Police Station Podi,
District Korea Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur),
Chhattisgarh
2 - Maniram Chouhan S/o Samaru Sai Aged About 30 Years
Occupation Labourer, R/o Godaripara, Azad Nagar, Chirmiri ,
Hal Mukam West Chirmiri Podi, Police Station Podi, District
Korea    Chhattisgarh.,    District    :   Koriya   (Baikunthpur),
Chhattisgarh
3 - Saniram Chouhan S/o Samaru Sai Aged About 28 Years R/o
Godaripara, Azad Nagar, Chirmiri , Hal Mukam West Chirmiri
Podi, Police Station Podi, District Korea Chhattisgarh., District :
Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
                                      2

4 - Firoz Khan S/o Shamsuddin Khan Aged About 36 Years R/o
Village Khadgawan, Police Station And Tahsil Khadgawan,
District     Korea    Chhattisgarh.      (Driver),   District   :   Koriya
(Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
5 - Kamal Chouhan S/o Shekhar Chouhan Aged About 42 Years
R/o Azad Nagar, Godaripara, Chirmiri, Tahsil And Police Station
Chirmiri , District Korea Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Koriya
(Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
                                                      ... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate

SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 20.03.2026

1. The appellant/Insurance Company has preferred this

appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 calling in question the legality, validity and

correctness of impugned award dated 14/01/2020

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) in Claim Case No.

50/2019 (Samaru Sai & Ors. v. Firoz Khan & Ors.)

whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a

compensation of Rs. 5,05,600/- in favour of the

claimants and the liability to pay the compensation has

been fastened upon the appellant/Insurance Company.

2. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant

would submit that deceased Rambai was occupant in the

offending vehicle but the insurance policy is a liability

only policy in which risk of passengers/inmates is not

covered, as such, the Insurance Company would not be

liable to pay the compensation amount. He would further

submit that application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC

has been filed on behalf of the appellant/Insurance

Company for taking the copy of insurance policy on

record and he would also rely upon paragraphs 21 and

22 of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the

matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. v.

Balakrishnan and Another1 to buttress his submission.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant,

considered his submission and went through the record

with utmost circumspection.

4. A careful perusal of the written statement filed by the

appellant/Insurance Company before the Claims

Tribunal would show that there is no specific pleading

with regard to the fact that the insurance policy is a

liability only policy and since the deceased was sitting in

the offending vehicle as a passenger, therefore, her risk

would not be covered and thus, the Insurance Company

would not be liable to make payment of compensation. 1 2013 (1) T.A.C. 1 (SC)

5. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Iqbal Ahmed

(Dead) by LRs. and Anr. v. Abdul Shukoor2, has held

that before undertaking the exercise of considering

whether a party is entitled to lead additional evidence

under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the CPC, it would be first

necessary to examine the pleadings of such party to

gather if the case sought to be set up is pleaded so as to

support the additional evidence that is proposed to be

brought on record. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the report

state as under :-

"8. In our opinion, before undertaking the exercise of considering whether a party is entitled to lead additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code, it would be first necessary to examine the pleadings of such party to gather if the case sought to be set up is pleaded so as to support the additional evidence that is proposed to be brought on record. In absence of necessary pleadings in that regard, permitting a party to lead additional evidence would result in an unnecessary exercise and such evidence, if led, would be of no consequent as it may not be permissible to take such evidence into consideration. Useful reference in this regard can be made to the decisions in Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal, (2008) 17 SCC 491 : AIR 2009 SC 1103 and Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148. Thus, besides the requirements prescribed by Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code being fulfilled, it would also be necessary for the Appellate Court to consider the pleadings of the party seeking to lead such additional evidence. It is only thereafter on being satisfied that a case as contemplated by the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code has been made out that such permission can be granted. In absence of such exercise being 2 2025 SCC Online SC 1787

undertaken by the High Court in the present case, we are of the view that it committed an error in allowing the application moved by the defendant for leading additional evidence.

9. As we have found that the application for leading additional evidence has been considered by the Appellate Court without examining the aspect as to whether the additional evidence proposed to be led was in consonance with the pleadings of the defendant and whether such case had been set up by him coupled with the fact that the additional evidence taken on record has weighed with it while reversing the decree, the matter requires reconsideration by the High Court. Since we find that the matter requires re-consideration at the hands of the High Court afresh, we have not gone into the aspect of delay in deciding the appeal by the High Court as was urged on behalf of the appellants."

6. Similarly, in the matter of Gobind Singh and Others v.

Union of India and Others3, it has been held by the

Supreme Court that the parties do not possess any

vested or automatic right to seek admission of additional

evidence at the appellate stage. It has been observed in

paragraph 11.4 as under :-

"11.4. ... Thus, a holistic reading of the aforesaid decision makes it clear that the appellate court's inquiry, while considering an application for leading additional evidence, is confined to examining whether such evidence is necessary to remove a lacuna in the case. More importantly, the appellate court may permit additional evidence only upon being satisfied that the conditions expressly stipulated under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC are fulfilled. The parties do not possess any vested or automatic right to seek admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage. 3 2026 SCC Online SC 339

Consequently, the provision has no application where the appellate court is in a position to render a satisfactory and reasoned judgment on the basis of the evidence already available on record."

7. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid

that in the written statement, no specific pleading has

been taken by the appellant/Insurance Company that

the deceased was an occupant in the offending vehicle

and the policy issued to the said vehicle was liability only

policy, therefore, Insurance Company would not be liable

to pay compensation and neither any evidence has been

led in this regard before the Claims Tribunal. Thus, the

appellant/Insurance Company cannot be allowed to take

this pleading for the first time before this Court and the

application filed by the appellant/Insurance Company

under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC also cannot be allowed. I