IMPORTANT POINT
An appeal cannot introduce new grounds not raised in the original proceedings; the appellate court's role is to review the lower court's decision based on existing evidence.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.

Heard Mr. R.C. Paul, the learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Company as well as Ms. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment dated 26.02.2016 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaon in MAC Case No.14/2009.

3. On 09.09.2000 at about 12.45 P.M., late Girish Ch. Borah was travelling as a pillion rider in a scooter bearing Registration No.AS-02-4459 (LML Vespa Scooter). It was riding by Sri Prasanta Kr. Baruah. It is alleged that the scooter was riding in a rash and negligent manner. When a cow came in front of the scooter, the driver in order to save the cow, took some turns. As a result of which, the scooter lost control and the deceased was thrown away from the scooter. He sustained serious injuries. He was brought to Guwahati for medical treatment. On the next day of the accident, Sri Girish Ch. Borah succumbed to his injuries.

4. In the claim petition, Prasanta Baruah (the rider) and the present appellant were made opposite parties.

5. During the pendency of the case, Prasanta Baruah died and therefore his wife Bina Baruah contested the claim petition. She claimed that the scooter bearing Registration No.AS-02-4459 (LML Vespa Scooter) was duly insured with the present appellant Insurance Company.

6. The appellant Insurance Company, in its written statement, claimed that the scooter bearing Registration No.AS-02-4459 was not driven by an authorized driver with a valid licence. It also claimed that the said scooter was never driven in a rash and negligent manner. According to the Insurance Company, the Insurance Policy No.2441/2002 that was valid up to 31.03.2001, is not available in their office records.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

I. Whether the claim petition is maintainable?

II. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of vehicle No.AS-02-4459 (LML Vespa Scooter)?

III. Whether the claimant is entitled to receive the compensation, and if so, to what extent and who is liable to pay the same?

IV. To what relief/reliefs are the parties entitled?

8. At the time of hearing of the claim petition, the claimant examined two witnesses. The Insurance Company did not examine any witnesses.

9. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.12,18,504/-.

10. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Tribunal, the appellant filed this appeal.

11. In the memo of appeal, no specific ground has been taken by the Insurance Company. Therefore, the appellant filed three numbers of Interlocutory Applications. In the IA(Civil) No.1201/2023 and in IA(Civil) No.524/2023, the appellant prayed for leave to bring on record certain documents.

12. In IA(Civil) 1691/2024, the appellant’s prayer was made under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for leave to allow it to adduce additional evidence in the Tribunal to prove that there was no coverage of Insurance Policy at the time of the accident.

13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

14. An appeal is a remedial concept determined as an individual’s right to seek justice against an unjust decree/order by referring it to a Superior Court. Sections 96 to 99A; 107 to 108 & Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deal with appeals from original decrees known as First appeals. An appeal is a legal process in which a higher forum reviews the decision of a lower forum on both legal and factual grounds. The word appeal has nowhere been defined in the Code of Civil Procedure. The term appeal means the judicial examination by a hi