Madhya Pradesh High Court
Akhilesh Mishra vs Lokpalsingh on 24 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27999
1 MA-8197-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 24 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 8197 of 2024
AKHILESH MISHRA
Versus
LOKPALSINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pravin Kumar Bhatt - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Pradeep Gupta - Advocate with Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel
for the respondent No.3.
ORDER
01. With consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is finally heard.
02. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been
preferred by the appellant / claimant being aggrieved by the award dated
25/7/2024 passed in MACC No.10466/2018 by the 18th Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Indore, District Indore whereby a total sum of Rs.10,60,000/- has been
awarded to the appellant / claimant by way of compensation.
03. The short facts of the case are that, on 13.7.2018 in the morning the
appellant on his motorcycle was going to his office. As soon as he reached at
service road respondent No.1 / driving tanker bearing registration No.M.P. 09 HG
7047 (owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3) in rash and
negligent manner and dashed the same into the vehicle of the appellant from
behind, as a result of which he fell down and suffered grievous injuries on his
hand. He was admitted in the hospital, where his right hand was amputated.
04. The appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27999
2 MA-8197-2024
for award of compensation to him on account of amputation of hand. The
application was contested by respondent No.3 Insurance Co. by filing its written
statement to the same. Upon evaluation of the evidence brought on record by the
parties the claims tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,60,000/-.
05. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claims tribunal while
considering the extent of the injuries has considered in para 29 that the appellant
has suffered 100% functional disability due to the injuries sustained by him.
However, while calculating compensation for such permanent disability, the
claims tribunal in terms of para 30 has not believed the salary certificate Exhibit
P/17 and his income has been considered on notional basis at Rs.10,000/- per
month whereas the appellant was working in Pratap Snack Pvt. Ltd and was
earning Rs.27,750/- per month for which Exhibit P/17 salary certificate has been
produced on record. The said salary slip was proved through statement of one
Parmar Singh (AW.2) who deposed that the appellant was working in the said
company and receiving the salary. The said witness was working as coordinator in
H.R. Section of the said company. Thus there was no occasion for the claims
tribunal to disbelieve the said salary slip. He thus prays for enhancement of
compensation by taking his salary as mentioned in Exhibit P/17.
06. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Co. also refers
to the findings recorded in para 30 of the impugned award as well as para 31 and
points out that in the cross examination the said witness has admitted that the
salary slip was prepared by himself and he has not signed on the same. He also
admitted that he unathorizedly prepared that salary slip. As such, the claims
tribunal has rightly disbelieved the same and has correctly taken the income of the
appellant on notional basis.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27999
3 MA-8197-2024
07. In rejoinder submissions, learned counsel for the appellant points out that he
has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC whereby producing
bank statement where the receipt of his income is shown which proves the
correctness of Exhibit P/17 salary slip.
08. While reply to the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, learned
counsel for the Insurance Co. refers to the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891
particularly Section 2A ie., conditions in the print out and points out that the bank
statement which has been obtained by the appellant through online process is not
accompanied with a certificate or manager of the bank. He also refers to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Union of India V/s.
K.B. Lakshman, (2016) 3 SCC 124 para 36 of the said judgment is relevant which
reads as under :-
"36. Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code is a provision which enables the
party to file additional evidence at the first and second appellate stage.
If the party to appeal is able to satisfy the appellate Court that there is
justifiable reason for not filing such evidence at the trial stage and that
the additional evidence is relevant and material for deciding the rights
of the parties which are the subject matter of the lis, the Court should
allow the party to file such additional evidence. After all, the Court has
to do substantial justice to the parties. Merely because the Court
allowed one party to file additional evidence in appeal would not by
itself mean that the Court has also decided the entire case in his favour
and accepted such evidence. Indeed once the additional evidence is
allowed to be taken on record, the appellate Court is under obligation
to give opportunity to the other side to file additional evidence by way
of rebuttal."
09. He also submits that in case the application is entertained and the appellant
is allowed to produce some additional evidence, then Company also deserves to be
provided an opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
11. Although it is correct that in the cross examination the answers given by the
witness AW.2 completely fades away the credibility of Exhibit P/17. However, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27999
4 MA-8197-2024
circumstances have drastically changed after the placement of bank statement of
the appellant by of application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. Thus in the
peculiar facts of the case keeping in view para 36 of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of K.B. Lakshman (supra), the matter is remanded back to
the claims tribunal for a limited issue to take evidence on the question of quantum
of compensation by allowing the appellant to lead the evidence and the Insurance
Co. to lead evidence in rebuttal of the same and decide the quantum within a
period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
12. Parties are directed to appear before the claims tribunal on 15/10/2025. In
view of the remand of the matter the Court fees of the appellant be refunded in
terms of Section 13 of the Court Fees Act. Record of the claims tribunal be sent
forthwith.
13. With the aforesaid, the appeal stands partly allowed and disposed off.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
SS/-
