[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Appellants vs P.T.C. Clearing & Forwarding Agency And ... on 3 December, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal from Order No.553 of 2013
03rd December, 2025
Smt. Rubi Devi and others
--Appellants
Versus
P.T.C. Clearing & Forwarding Agency and others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Mohd. Azim, learned Counsel for the appellants.
Mr. K.K. Shah, learned Counsel for respondent no.3-Insurance Co.
None is present for respondent nos.1 and 2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not appear before
the Claims Tribunal and the matter was accordingly
proceeded against them ex parte. Today, the matter is
listed on the Application for Additional Evidence
(IA/10277/2021) by which the appellants want to produce
certain documents at the stage of appeal as additional
evidence.
2. Objection to the said application has already
been filed by the respondent no.3-Insurance Company.
3. I have perused the application for bringing on
record the additional evidence. By means of the present
application, appellants intend to invoke the jurisdiction of
this Court under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. to permit them to
file additional evidence viz. 'charge-sheet, FIR, site plan and
post-mortem report of the deceased' which could not be
filed before the Tribunal. According to the appellants,
aforesaid documents could not be provided to the lawyer
appearing on their behalf before the Claims Tribunal.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company has raised objection to the application on the
ground that the documents were in possession of
appellants and, therefore, the same should have been filed
by them during pendency of claim and, therefore, now
before the Appellate Court, they moved application to allow
them to file these documents in evidence.
5. Having considered the rival submissions of the
parties and having perused the application, this Court is of
the view that this is a matter relating to death in a motor
accident and the claim petition has been filed by the legal
heirs of deceased Ranjeet Singh for compensation, and
keeping in mind the fact that the Motor Vehicles Act is a
beneficial piece of legislation, it would be in the fitness of
things to allow the said application. Accordingly, the
application for producing additional evidence
(IA/10277/2021) is allowed. The documentary evidence
annexed with the present application is taken on record.
The objection filed by the insurance company stands
disposed of accordingly.
6. Since the claim petition was rejected by the
Tribunal due to lack of evidence on the part of appellants,
therefore, at this stage, the matter is remitted back to the
learned Tribunal. Impugned judgment and order dated
28.09.2013 passed by the MACT/Second Additional
District Judge, Rudrapur, U.S. Nagar in MACP No.04 of
2010 (Smt. Rubi Devi and others v. PTC Clearing and
Forwarding Agency) is set aside. The matter is remanded
back to the Tribunal for hearing the case on merits after
hearing the parties and after taking into consideration the
evidence which has been filed by the appellants before this
Court in accordance with law.
7. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.
8. Pending application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
03.12.2025
Rdang
