Amit Kumar Vs Rajinder Kumar

1 ( 2026:HHC:13174 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

FAO No. 134 of 2015 Reserved on: 21.04.2026 Decided on: 23.04.2026 ________________________________________________ Amit Kumar ....Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

Rajinder Kumar & Ors. …Respondents

¶6

Coram

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the appellant : Mr. Balvinder Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ankur Negi, Advocate, vice Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1.

¶9

None for respondent No.2.

¶10

Mr. J.S. Bagga, Advocate, for respondents No. 3.

¶11

Sushil Kukreja, Judge

¶12

The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “Act”) has been filed by the appellant, against the award dated 31.01.2014, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Hamirpur, H.P., in MAC Petition No. 17 of 2012, whereby the claim petition filed

¶13

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

2 ( 2026:HHC:13174 )

¶15

by the petitioner was allowed against respondents No. 1 & 2 and they were held liable to pay compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 1,38,532/- to the petitioner, alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing the petition, till its realization/deposit of the amount and respondent No. 3, being insurer, was directed to indemnify the compensation amount.

¶16

Brief facts of the case are that on 05.06.2012, the petitioner was driving motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-22B-2628 and was on his way from his Village Kakariar to Baddi alongwith his brother Sumit Kumar. At about 6:00 P.M., when they reached near Government Degree College, Una, one Mahindra Pick-up, bearing registration No. HP-679399, being driven by respondent No. 2 rashly and negligently, came from opposite side and hit their motorcycle, due to which, the petitioner and his brother Sumit Kumar sustained injuries and fractures in their right arms and legs. After the said accident, the petitioner and his brother were taken to Regional Hospital, Una, from where they were referred to PGI, Chandigarh. According to the petitioner, he

¶17

3 ( 2026:HHC:13174 )

¶18

remained hospitalized for a considerable period and incurred a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- on his medical treatment and other miscellaneous expenses. The petitioner was operated for the injuries sustained by him and suffered disability, rendering him incapable of doing the job. Prior to the accident, the petitioner was working at HIM Katwal Gatta Factory, Baddi and was earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month, as such, he claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/-.

¶19

Respondents No. 1 & 2 by filing reply contested

¶20

the claim petition and raised preliminary objections qua maintainability, non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, suppression of material facts and estoppel. On merits, it has been admitted that the petitioner and his brother sustained injuries in the accident. However, it has been denied that author of rash and negligent act was respondent No. 2. It has been submitted that the petitioner was driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and while overtaking a car, he struck with the jeep in question, which was coming from the opposite side.

¶21

4 ( 2026:HHC:13174 )

¶22

Respondent No. 3 by filing reply raised

¶23

preliminary objections qua maintainability and cause of action. On merits, it has been submitted that the offending vehicle was being driven and plied in contravention to the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and also against the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle No. 22B-2628 by the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle.

¶24

After the parties led evidence and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the claim petition was allowed and the petitioner was held entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,38,532/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition till its realization/deposit of the amount, to be made by respondents No. 1 & 2. Respondent No. 3 being insurer was directed to indemnify the award.

¶25

5 ( 2026:HHC:13174 )

¶26

Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner preferred the instant appeal under Section 173 of the Act for enhancement of the award.

¶27

During the pendency of the present appeal, appellant has filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27, read with Section 151 CPC, i.e. CMP No. 8231 of 2026, for placing on record the copy of disability certificate of the appellant. It has been averred in the application that appellant has suffered 79% disability and is undergoing treatment from PGI Chandigarh. It has been further averred in the application that after the decision in the claim petition, Medical Board has been constituted and the disability certificate has been issued in favour of the appellant on 07.05.2014. According to the appellant, the disability certificate could not be produced on record, as the same was not in his possession at the time of decision of the claim petition, hence, disability certificate is necessary for the just decision of the case and for the purpose of awarding fair compensation to the appellant.

¶28

6 ( 2026:HHC:13174 )

¶29

Reply to the application has been filed by

¶30

respondent No. 3/Insurance Company, wherein, prayer made in the application has been denied and dismissal of the same has been prayed.

¶31

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶32

appellant, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and have also gone through the material available on record.

¶33

At this stage, it would be apt to reproduce Order 41, Rule 27 CPC, which reads as under:-

¶34

“ 27. Production of Additional Evidence in Appellate Court- (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court, But if:

¶35

(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or

¶36

(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or

¶37

(b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined.”

¶38

7 ( 2026:HHC:13174 )

¶39

Thus, the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court

¶40

would be exercised when a party seeking to produce additional evidence establishes that such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed. Since the disability certificate was not in the possession of the appellant at the time of the decision in the claim petition, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the disability certificate, sought to be placed on record by way of additional evidence is necessary for just decision of the case.

¶41

Accordingly, the present appeal as well as application for placing on record the disability certificate is allowed. The impugned award, dated 31.01.2014 is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned Tribunal below to decide the same afresh, after giving not more than two opportunities to the appellant to lead his entire evidence and to prove the disability certificate, in accordance with law. The respondents shall also be given not more than two opportunities to lead their evidence in rebuttal. Save and

¶42

8 ( 2026:HHC:13174 )

¶43

except the official witnesses, the parties are directed to produce evidence at their own responsibility.

¶44

Needless to state that since the accident pertains to the year 2012, the learned Tribunal below is directed to decide the claim petition on or before 31.10.2026 . Parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal below on 29.05.2026 .

¶45

Learned Registrar (Judicial) shall ensure that the entire record be remitted to the learned Tribunal below forthwith.

¶46

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any.

¶47

( Sushil Kukreja )

¶48

23^rd April, 2026 Judge (raman)

Amit Kumar v. Rajinder Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar v. Rajinder Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Land Acquisition Colllector Hppwd Vs Amar Singh and another

State of Hp and Others Vs Chain Singh and others

Vijay Kumar Juneja Vs State of Hp

Billu Ram Vs Kamlesh Kumar Pant and Ors.

Sumit Kumar Vs Rajinder Kumar

Madhu Bala and Others Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another