An appellate court may only permit additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. if the underlying case was specifically pleaded in the lower court and the evidence is necessary to resolve the dispute, as parties have no vested right to introduce evidence at the appellate stage.

Order on Board

1. Against the impugned award dated 19.07.2019 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh in Claim Case No.04/2019, the insurance company has preferred MAC No.2159/2019 seeking exoneration from the liability to pay the compensation, whereas the claimants have preferred MAC No.1936/2019 seeking enhancement of the amount under award.

2. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the appeals, they are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order.

3. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the insurance company, would submit that the offending vehicle was heavy motor vehicle (trailer) whereas the driver did have licence to drive the light motor vehicle, as the driving licence has been filed along-with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C.

4. Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the claimants and Mr. Abhishek Saraf, learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle, would submit that no evidence has been led by the insurance company and no specific plea was taken in the written statement that the driver of the offending vehicle only have driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle and he did not have a driving licence to drive the heavy goods vehicle. As such, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. cannot be allowed and the appeal of the insurance company deserves to be dismissed.

5. Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the claimants, would submit that the deceased was forest guard and future prospect has not been awarded, therefore, the claimants are entitled for 30% additional amount on annual income as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Others¹1 (2017) 16 SCC 680.

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

7. So far as the appeal of insurance company is concerned, the only plea has been taken by the insurance company that the driver did not have valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle but no specific pleading was raised that the offending vehicle was heavy motor vehicle and it was driven by the driver who have only licence to drive the light motor vehicle. However, in the present appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. along-with the driving licence of the driver has been filed stating that the driver of the offending vehicle had only licence to drive the light motor vehicle.

8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Iqbal Ahmed (dead) by Lrs., and another v. Abdul Shukoor²2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1787 has held that the Court while considering application under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. 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:-

“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 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