United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Milapa Bai

Ashok Kumar Satnami S/o Shri Satyanarayan Satnami, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Dhangawan, P. O. Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh; Hal Mukam Qtr. No. M-47, Ompur Colony,

¶18

2

¶19

MAC No. 1459 of 2019

¶20

Rajga Mar, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh (Driver)............ (Non-Applicant No. 01).

¶21

Sabbir Kumar Jangade S/o Kishan Lal Jangade, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Devpahri, Ajgar Bahar, P.O. Gadh Uproda, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh (Owner)...(Non-Applicant No. 02).

¶22

... Respondents

¶23

For Appellant :- Mr. Dashrath	Gupta, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 to 5 :- Ashutosh Shu	kla, Advocate
For Respondent No.7 :- Ms. Neha	Khandekar, Advocate,
appears on	behalf of Mr. Ravi
Maheshwari,	Advocate.

¶24

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board

¶25

02.04.2026

¶26

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellantInsurance Company calling the question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned Claim Case No.68/2017 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), District Korba, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) by which claimants’ application has been allowed by fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company to pay the compensation along with the interest. However, the claimants have also filed the cross objection against the impugned Claim Case No.68/2017 for enhancement in the compensation amount for the death of Ramsai Kanwar.

¶27

3

¶28

MAC No. 1459 of 2019

¶29

Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, would submit that application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC for taking additional document on record and also application under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the CP for making amendment in the written statement have been filed by the Insurance Company which may be considered as the deceased was the pillion rider and the policy impugned is the liability-onlypolicy, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation and the Claims Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company. As such, the above applications and the appeal of the Insurance Company deserve to be allowed.

¶30

Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, learned counsel for the claimants, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the Insurance Company as the said plea has not been taken in the written statement and, therefore, appeal of the Insurance Company deserves to be dismissed as the said documents cannot be allowed in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Iqbal Ahmed (dead) by Lrs., and another v. Abdul Shukoor1. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the matter of Gobind Singh and Other v. Union of India and others2 has already

¶31

1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1787

¶32

2 2026 SCC OnLine SC 339

¶33

4

¶34

MAC No. 1459 of 2019

¶35

held that the filing of application is not a vested right. He would also submit that compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is not just and proper and the same is liable to be enhanced under the several heads.

¶36

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records precisely.

¶37

Admittedly, the plea that the deceased was the pillion rider and the policy impugned is the liability-only-policy has not been taken by the appellant-Insurance Company in the written statement which was filed before the Claims Tribunal and for the first time the same is sought to be raised. The Supreme Court in the matter of Iqbal Ahmed (supra) has held that the Court while considering application under Order 41 Rule 27(1) of the is required to consider if the case sought to be set up pleaded so as to support the additional evidence that is proposed to be brought on record and observed as under:-

¶38

“8. In our opinion, before undertaking the exercise of considering whether a party is entitled to lead additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code, it would be first necessary to examine the pleadings of such party to gather if the case sought to be set up is pleaded so as to support the additional evidence that is proposed to be brought on record. In absence of necessary

¶39

5

¶40

MAC No. 1459 of 2019

¶41

pleadings in that regard, permitting a party to lead additional evidence would result in an unnecessary exercise and such evidence, if led, would be of no consequence as it may not be permissible to take such evidence into consideration. Useful reference in this regard can be made to the decisions in Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal, (2008) 17 SCC 491 : AIR 2009 SC 1103 and Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148. Thus, besides the requirements prescribed by Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code being fulfilled, it would also be necessary for the Appellate Court to consider the pleadings of the party seeking to lead such additional evidence. It is only thereafter on being satisfied that a case as contemplated by the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code has been made out that such permission can be granted. In absence of such exercise being undertaken by the High Court in the present case, we are of the view that it committed an error in allowing the application moved by the defendant for leading additional evidence.

¶42

As we have found that the application for leading additional evidence has been considered by the Appellate Court without examining the aspect as to whether the additional evidence proposed to be led was in consonance with the pleadings of the defendant and whether such case had been set up by him coupled with the fact that the additional evidence taken on record has weighed with it while reversing the decree, the matter requires reconsideration by the High Court. Since we find that the matter requires re-consideration at the hands of the High Court afresh, we have not gone into

¶43

6

¶44

MAC No. 1459 of 2019

¶45

the aspect of delay in deciding the appeal by the High Court as was urged on behalf of the appellants.”

¶46

In the instant case, the plea with regard to the policy being liability only policy has not been taken in the written statement filed before the Claims Tribunal and for the first time it is sought to be raised while filing the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of Gobind Singh (supra) has held that the parties do not possess any vested or automatic right to seek admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage and the provision has not application where the appellate court is in a position to render a satisfactory and reasoned judgment on the basis of the evidence already available on record and observed as under:-

¶47

“11.4 …………...Thus, a holistic reading of the aforesaid decision makes it clear that the appellate court's inquiry, while considering an application for leading additional evidence, is confined to examining whether such evidence is necessary to remove a lacuna in the case. More importantly, the appellate court may permit additional evidence only upon being satisfied that the conditions expressly stipulated under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC are fulfilled. The parties do not possess any vested or automatic right to seek admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage. Consequently, the provision has no application where the appellate court is in a position to render a satisfactory and reasoned

¶48

7

¶49

MAC No. 1459 of 2019

¶50

judgment on the basis of the evidence already available on record.”

¶51

As such, in absence of pleading, which is sought to the taken in the written statement has not been pleaded and the appellant does not possess any vested or automatic right to seek admission of additional evidence at this appellate stage and the appellate court is in a position to render a satisfactory and reasoned judgment on the basis of evidence already available on record. In the present case also this Court is able to decide the appeal of the appellant on the basis of pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on the record. In that view of the matter, I do not find a fit case grant application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC for taking additional documents/evidence on record, therefore, the same is rejected and consequently, application under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the CPC for making amendment in the written statement is also rejected. No other point has been taken by the Insurance Company except the point placed in on record by way of aforesaid applications. As such, the appeal of the Insurance Company deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶52

Also heard on Cross Objection.

¶53

8

¶54

MAC No. 1459 of 2019

¶55

Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, learned counsel for the claimants, would submit that the under the heads of loss of consortium less amount has been granted by the Claims Tribunal. Claimants namely Brijraj Singh, Ku. Vimla and Ku. Shimla have not granted parental consortium, which is liable to be awarded.

¶56

Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, would submit that the compensation amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for interference.

¶57

After going through the records, I am of the considered opinion, the amount under the heads of parental consortium is liable to be awarded to Claimants namely Brijraj Singh, Ku. Vimla and Ku. Shimla. Thus, each of the claimants will awarded ₹40,000/meaning thereby ₹1,20,000/- is enhanced by this Court in addition to the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal i.e. ₹ 45,57,582/- . The concerned respondent/party is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court i.e. ₹1,20,000/- within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶58

9

¶59

MAC No. 1459 of 2019

¶60

12.Accordingly, the appeal of the Insurance Company is dismissed and the cross objection of the claimants is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated

¶61

herein-above.

¶62

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶63

Ankit

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Milapa Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Milapa Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Kuamr Sharma Vs Gyan Singh Chandra

Awadh Ram Sahu (Died) Through Lrs Vs Lakhan Lal Meshram

Shailesh Gupta Vs Ravindra Kumar Naag

Smt. Chandravati Patel Vs Vidyadhar Nayak

Pawan Kumar Markandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramsan Vs Branch Manager Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.