IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on : 19.06.2025 + MAC.APP. 11/2023, CM APPL. 932/2023 & CM APPL.

934/2023 MANISH GARG & ANR. .....Appellants versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD & ANR. .....Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellants : Mr. Neeraj Goyal, Adv. through V.C.

For the Respondents : Mr. Animesh Sinha, Mr. Shubham Budhiraja & Ms. Jagriti Singh, Advs. for R-

1.

Mr. Shrey Chathly, Adv. for R-2.

CORAM HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

CM APPL. 934/2023 (application to place the additional evidence on record)

1. The appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 17.08.2022 (hereafter ‘impugned award’) passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in MACT No. 72/2019 and MACT Signature Not Verified Signed By:SANJAY MAC.APP. 11/2023 Page 1 of 16 No. 714/2022, whereby the learned Tribunal granted the right of recovery to the insurer — United India Assurance Co. Ltd. — against the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.

2. The present application has been filed by the appellants under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) seeking to place on record training certificates of Appellant No. 2/driver required for plying hazardous goods vehicle required under Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (‘MV Rules’). The appellants further pray to place on record the affidavits of the appellants to the effect that at the time of the accident the offending oil tanker was not carrying any hazardous substance.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the said training certificates had been misplaced and could not be procured even after due diligence by Appellant No. 2/driver. He submitted that it was only after passing of the impugned award, Appellant No.

2/driver found the said certificates in his house.

4. He submitted that at the stage of trial the appellants duly informed their counsel that the offending oil tanker was empty at the time of the alleged accident, however, their counsel advised them that now the Insurance Company will defend the claim petition and there was no need for the appellants to defend their claims separately.

5. He further submitted that the said documents are material and would be required by this Court for the adjudication of the present appeal.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:SANJAY MAC.APP. 11/2023 Page 2 of 16

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for Respondent No. 1/Insurance Company vehemently opposed the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and consequently prayed that the present application be dismissed.

7. He submitted that the reasons given by the appellants in the present application are an afterthought to reopen an already decided case.

8. He submitted that the learned Tribunal by order dated 05.07.2022 recorded that Appellant No. 2/driver did not wish to lead any evidence and Appellant No. 1/owner was not present to lead any evidence and subsequently the learned Tribunal closed their right to lead evidence. He submitted that in view of aforementioned order it cannot be said that the appellants were not duly represented or were not provided with an opportunity to lead evidence before the learned Tribunal.

9. He further submitted that it was on the appellants to prove that they had been incorrectly advised by their counsel and therefore, failed to lead evidence before the learned Tribunal.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties in respect to the present application.

Analysis

11. The short question that falls for consideration before this Court is whether by the present application the documents that the appellant prays to place on record are material for the adjudication of the present appeal.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:SANJAY MAC.APP. 11/2023 Page 3 of 16

12. Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC provides for the scheme of placing additional evidence before the appellate court. The same reads as under:

“ORDER XLI APPEALS FROM ORIGINAL DECREES xxxx xxxx xxxx

27. Production