Jharkhand High Court
Ghanshyam Prasad Sharma vs Sri Priyatosh Kumar & Ors on 3 April, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 182 of 2007
-----
Ghanshyam Prasad Sharma ... .... Appellant
Versus
Sri Priyatosh Kumar & Ors. ... .... Respondents
With
C.O No. 05 of 2008
-----
Sri Priyatosh Kumar ... .... Cross Objectors
Versus
Ghanshyam Prasad Sharma & Ors. .... .... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Chanchal Jain, Advocate (in M.A.182/07)
Mr. Rajiv Kumar Karan, Advocate (in C.O 05/08)
For the Respondent : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Rajiv Kumar Karan, Advocate (in M.A 182/07)
-----
Oral Order
38 / Dated : 03.04.2025
1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that inadvertently in
this interlocutory application a wrong provision of law has been quoted
in the cause title, as Article 226 of the Constitution of India which
should have been Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. Permission is sought for
making necessary correction in the interlocutory application during
course of the day.
Permission is accorded.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant in this interlocutory
application (I.A. No. 7177 of 2016) which has originally been filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has now been
amended under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for adducing additional
evidence of the claimant with regard to bills of his treatment and also
regarding his income from different work orders of which were pending
at the time of the said accident.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the
accident took place on 31.08.2002 and immediately after the accident,
the claimant was taken for treatment to Kolmet Hospital and Medical
Research Centre at New Delhi, and from there he was shifted to Sir
Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi. During course of his treatment at
Kolmet Hospital and Medical Research Centre, the claimant was
discharged from there on 08.09.2002 and the bill regarding treatment of
Rs. 28,950/- was issued by the said hospital which has been filed
herewith. Further, the claimant had to undergo amputation of his right
leg and after treatment he was discharged from Sir Ganga Ram
Hospital, New Delhi on 12.10.2002. The medical bill of Rs. 2,59,820/-
issued by the hospital on the date of his discharge has been filed.
Different work orders issued by the Steel Authority of India Limited to
complete different repair works from 26.04.2001, 08.03.2001,
05.09.2001, 25.03.2003, 09.04.2002, 02.01.2002, 09.08.2002 and
21.08.2002 has been filed as Annexure-IA/3 Series.
4. It is further submitted that all these documents were filed before
the Tribunal which will be evident from order-sheet of lower court
record dated 16.12.2004 and 14.07.2006. These documents, however,
could not be marked as Ext. and, therefore, the instant interlocutory
application has been filed to adduce these documents into evidence.
Reliance in this regard is placed in (2019) 2 SCC 186 (Vimla Devi &
Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Anr.) wherein it
has been held that the documents being not exhibited was a procedural
lapse which cannot be made a basis to reject the claim petition.
5. It is argued by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that
learned counsel for the claimant has relied upon a judgment in (2015)
17 SCC 713 (A. Andisamy Chettiar Vs. A. Subburaj Chettiar) which
specifically states the condition in which the additional evidence can be
adduced into evidence at the appellate stage. There is no material on
record to suggest that these documents were not in the possession of the
claimant and that he was precluded by any circumstance beyond his
control to get it proved before learned Tribunal.
6. Having considered the submission made on behalf of both sides
on the interlocutory application, there cannot be two views with regard
to the legal position on adducing additional evidence at the appellate
stage. Mere filing of a document at the time of trial/enquiry does not
amount to its proof and it was incumbent on the part of the claimant to
have got the documents properly proved before the Trial Court.
7. However, this is a case where the accident took place on
31.08.2002 and more than two decades have elapsed. Claimant suffered
motor vehicle accident due to which he lost one of his legs and the
documents are with regard to his treatment in hospitals at Delhi and the
work orders given to him before the accident. These documents are
relevant evidence for computing compensation and considering the
nature of the claim case, the rules of C.P.C. will not apply in its absolute
rigidity.
Under the circumstance, I.A. No. 7177 of 2016 is allowed.
This interlocutory application is supported by affidavit with
which these documents have been filed, therefore, formal proof of the
documents is dispensed with. Let these documents be marked as Exts.
5, 6, 7, 7/1, 7/2, 7/3, 7/4, 7/5, 7/6 and 7/7 for identification.
I.A. No. 7177 of 2016 stands disposed of.
M. A. No. 182 of 2007 with C.O No. 05 of 2008
List these cases on 15.04.2025.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AKT/Satendra
