Jharkhand High Court

Opposite Party/ vs Talamai Baski on 23 April, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                                                                  [2025:JHHC:12601]




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                                         ---

M.A. No.385 of 2017

----

Sanjay Prasad Rai, son of Sahadeb Prasad Rai, resident of Village Amrapara, P.O. and P.S. Amrapara, District Pakur, Jharkhand ... Opposite Party/ Appellant

-- Versus --

1.Talamai Baski, wife of late Somai Murmu

2.Smeal Murmu (minor) son of late Somai Murmu Serial nos.1 and 2, both being residents of village Malipara Santhali, Dumarchi, P.O. and P.S. Amrapara, District Palur, Jharkhand

3.The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Court Compound, Dumka, P.O. and P.S. and District Dumka, Jharkhand .... Claimants/Respondent(s)

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

             For the Appellant                     :- Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
             For the Respondent/Claimants          :- Mr. Farooque Ansari, Advocate
             For the Respondent/Bank               :- Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate

                                            ----
12/23.04.2025      Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

        the appellant,    Mr. Farooque Ansari, the learned counsel for the claimants/

respondent nos.1 and 2 as well as Mr. Pratyush Kumar, the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3/ Oriental Insurance Company

Limited.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment/ Award dated

29.04.2017 passed in M.A.C.T. Case No.09 of 2015 by learned District Judge-I

cum Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Pakur.

3. Mr. Tewari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

submits that the deceased was not the passenger of the vehicle of the

appellant herein and it was categorically stated that the deceased was not the

passenger of the vehicle in question and in view of that the deceased did not

die due to the alleged accident of the vehicle in question. He submits that

[2025:JHHC:12601]

because of pressure created by the local people on a false pretext that the

husband of the Opp. Party No. 1 had died in the accident while traveling in the

bus of the appellant and as said there was a village salice wherein

Rs.1,70,000/- had been paid by the present appellant to the Opp. Party No. 1

as being a major to settle the matter outside the court. He submits that an

amount of Rs.1,70,000/- has already been paid and the matter was settled and

in spite of that the learned court has passed the Award to the tune of

Rs.7,68,600/- to the claimants along with the interest at the rate of 9 % per

annum from the date of filing of the application and till its realization. He

submits that for the accident in question G.R. Case No. 1189/13/ T.R.No.1431

of 2015 was registered and that was pursuant to Amrapara P.S. Case No. 64/13

arising out of the alleged accident. He submits that the said G.R.Case has been

tried by the learned court and the Driver has been acquitted by the learned trial

court by the judgment dated 24.11.2015. He submits that in the compensation

case and in criminal case, contradictory stand has been taken by the wife of the

deceased and in spite of that, the learned court has passed the said Award.

According to him, in the Fardbayan she has stated that her husband had

boarded on bus and she was along with her husband at the time of alleged

occurrence wherein before the learned trial court in criminal case, she has

stated that after the accident her husband was taken to the hospital where the

case was lodged and she came to know that her husband got injured when he

had gone to sell pigeon at Singarashi Hatia and during the course of return, he

was dashed by Sri Ganesh Bus. He submits that in the claim case and in the

criminal case contradictory stands have been taken and in view of that the

learned court has wrongly passed the Award. On this ground, he submits that

the Award may kindly be set aside.

3. Mr. Pratyush Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

Insurance company submits that there is clear cut finding by the learned

Tribunal to the effect that the vehicle in question was not insured at the time of

[2025:JHHC:12601]

accident and in view of that the insurance company has already been

exonerated. He further submits that criminal case has been decided in the year

2015 whereas the compensation case has been decided in the year 2017. The

judgment of the learned criminal trial court was not exhibited before the

learned Claims Tribunal and further that judgment is not brought on record to

lead additional evidence in light of Order XLI Rule 27 of the C.P.C and the

finding of the learned criminal court cannot be the subject matter of the civil

court. On this ground, he submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed

the Award.

4. The learned counsel for the claimants submits that an amount of

Rs.1,70,000/- was required to be paid to the claimants but the reality is that a

sum of Rs.22,000/- to shut the mouth of the claimants have been paid which

has been deducted by the learned Tribunal and thereafter the compensation

has been awarded. He submits that the O.P.No.1 is an illiterate lady and she

has clearly stated that she has not received Rs.1,70,000/-. According to him,

the accident took place and pursuant to that, the post mortem was done as

such, the stand of the appellant herein is not tenable. He submits in view of

that, this appeal may kindly be dismissed.

5. From the judgment of the learned Tribunal it transpires that the claim

case was instituted alleging therein that the death of her husband namely Late

Somai Murmu S/o Late Sankhay Murmu occurred due to vehicle accident and

by the vehicle bearing No.BEH 7121 for which the case has been lodged in

Amrapara P.S. Case No.64 of 2013 dated 3.11.2013 U/s 279, 304(A), 337, 338

and 427 IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1189/13 against the unknown

driver of alleged vehicle and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted

against the driver namely, Sanjay Prasad Rai. It was the further case of the

claimant is that deceased was the husband of claimant no. 1 and father of

claimant no. 2 and he was only one of the bread earner of their family and due

to rash and negligent driving of driver of the aforesaid vehicle the accident

[2025:JHHC:12601]

occurred in aforementioned road accident which resulted into the death of

deceased and after the investigation police submitted charge-sheet and

deceased died leaving behind the claimants and the deceased was only earning

member of his family. Further the case of the claimants' was that the claimant

sustained loss for the immature demise of deceased due to aforesaid accident.

In this background, the case was filed for compensation. The case of the

appellant herein was considered by the learned Tribunal in paragraph no.3

wherein the stand has been taken that the deceased along with his wife were

passenger in the vehicle in question and a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- has been paid.

The learned Tribunal has considered the evidence of PW-1 and found that she

has stated that due to accidental death of her husband the owner of the

offending vehicle has paid Rs.22,000/- to her and she has further stated that

she has lodged the case being G.R.Case No.1189 of 2013 and she denied that

she has received Rs.1,70,000/- regarding the accident of her husband.

According to her, she was supposed to receive Rs.8 lacs later on, wherein only

Rs.22,000/- has been paid and in the good faith she has received a sum of

Rs.22,000/-.

6. From the records and from the judgment it transpired that the

appellant herein has adduced only one witness and has not filed any document

to be exhibited, thus, the judgment of the learned criminal trial court dated

27.11.2015 was not before the learned Tribunal and only post mortem report

and the FIR as well as the charge sheet were marked as exhibits. At the

appellate stage if any additional evidence is sought to be adduced before the

appellate court, there is procedure to be followed in light of Order XLI Rule 27

of the CPC and in view of that provision, the parties to an appeal are not

entitled to produce additional evidence, oral or documentary, at the appellate

court, except on the principles enumerated in the Claise-(a), (aa) and (b) of the

Code. Where the appellate court requires any document to be produced or any

witness or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce the judgment,

[2025:JHHC:12601]

or for any other substantial cause. The expression "to enable it to pronounce

judgment" has been interpreted so as to mean that when the appellate court

finds itself unable to pronounce judgment owing to a lacuna or defect in

evidence as it stands, it may admit additional evidence. But that does not mean

that the clause should be resorted to patch up the weakness of the evidence of

the unsuccessful party before the trial court, though, if the court itself requires

the evidence to do justice between the parties, it may accept it. The ability to

pronounce a judgment is to be understood as the ability to pronounce a

judgment satisfactory to the mind of the court delivering it. But a mere

difficulty in coming to a decision is not sufficient for admission of evidence

under this rule. This provision does not entitle the appellate court to let in fresh

evidence at the appellate stage where even without such evidence it can

satisfactorily pronounce judgment in the case. It does not entitle the appellate

court to let in fresh evidence only for the purposes of pronouncement of

judgment in a particular way. The words "or for any other substantial cause"

must be read with the word "requires", which is set out at the commencement

of the provision, so that it is only where, for any other substantial cause, the

appellate court requires additional evidence, that this clause would apply.

Furthermore, if recourse is to be taken to the said clause, that is clause (c),

which is pari-materia clause (b) of the Code, the appellate court is required to

consider the entire evidence on record to come to an independent conclusion

whether for arriving at a just decision, adduction of additional evidence, as has

been prayed for, is necessary. In this background, a petition under Order XLI

Rule 27 CPC has to be considered. However, in the case in hand it has not been

filed and only the said judgment has been annexed with the appeal and that

judgment was not before the learned court who has passed the compensation

case.

7. Further, in light of the FIR, post mortem report and the charge sheet

the accident has already been proved and pursuant to that the death has

[2025:JHHC:12601]

occurred and this aspects have been taken care of by the learned Tribunal

while passing the Award. Not even a single chit of paper has been filed before

the learned Tribunal to suggest that a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- has been paid by

the appellant herein in the Panchayati and the admission has been made by the

wife of the deceased that Rs.22,000/- has been received and in view of that the

learned court has deducted that amount from the awarded amount.

8. The finding of the learned Tribunal looking to the insurance policy is

there which is from 06.12.2013 to mid night of 5.12.2014, wherein the alleged

accident took place on 3.11.2013 which clearly suggest that the vehicle in

question was not insured at the time of accident.

9. In view the above facts, reasons and analysis and appreciating the

arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that there is

no illegality in the impugned order. As such, this petition is dismissed.