[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Sr. Divisional Manager vs Mohammad Naimuddin Ansari & Ors on 16 December, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 33 of 2025
Sr. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited
.... .... Appellant
Versus
Mohammad Naimuddin Ansari & Ors. .... .... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Mukesh Kr. Dubey, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate
: Mr. Md. Nasim Akhtar, Advocate
: Mr. Arvind Kumar Ojha, Advocate
-----
Oral Order
05 / Dated : 16.12.2025
I.A. No. 486 of 2025
1. Heard the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant-Insurance
Company in this interlocutory application which has been filed under
Section 107 read with Order XLI, Rule 27 of CPC to adduce into evidence,
documents showing deductions under fast tag by the Ministry of Road,
Transport and Highways, at different toll plazas showing the location of
truck bearing No. HR-66B-1033.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that
the aforesaid truck was not even involved in the accident. It has been
specifically stated in the written statement filed by the insurance company
that the vehicle question was not even been involved in the accident. The
investigator in this case was examined as OPW-1 and he has deposed in
Para-3 that during investigation, he had contacted the owner of the vehicle
who had stated that vehicle was not involved in the accident, and at the
relevant time, it was at Ranchi. To prove the same, the copy of print out
record of the Toll Plaza, GPS tracking report were also filed, but they have
not been admitted into evidence.
3. As the learned Tribunal has refused to admit into evidence the
documents which ought to have been admitted, although it had been filed
before the learned Tribunal, therefore the same is being filed before the
Court.
4. It is argued by learned counsel on behalf of the claimants that the
owner had not appeared before the Tribunal and it was for the owner to have
filed the relevant documents to bring on record the location of the vehicle.
Further, the Insurance Company also did not file these documents as
evidence under Section 65(B) of the Evidence Act before the learned
Tribunal, rather examined its investigator as OPW-1 and his oral evidence
was not accepted to prove the contents of these documents.
5. Having considered the submissions advanced it has been held in
Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand 2022 SCC On Line SC
292:
"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 27 CPC 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 27 CPC 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 pronouncement
judgment or for any other substantial cause of like nature. As
observed and held by this Court in the case of A. Andisamy
Chettiar v. A. Subburaj Chettiar, reported in (2015) 17 SCC
713, 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.
6. It is apparent that the insurance company had specifically pleaded
that the said truck was not involved in the accident. The investigator had
enquired and filed documentary evidence regarding the electronic footprint
of the vehicle to show that it was not at the place of occurrence at the
relevant time of accident. The documentary evidence so produced were not
accepted by the learned, trial court, and no reason has been assigned for the
same. An unjust refusal to admit into evidence is one of the grounds to
allow a petition for additional evidence at the appellate stage.
7. Under the circumstance, the interlocutory application for additional
evidence is allowed.
8. The Insurance Company is permitted to adduce the said document
into evidence, subject to its strict proof and the right of rebuttal to the
respondents.
Put up this case four weeks.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AKT/Abha
Uploaded
18.12.2025
