NASIHAT KHAN vs PANKAJ KUMAR PATEL

1

CGHC010056832020
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed
by INDRAJEET
SAHU
Date: 2026.11.02
17:10:08 +0530
INDRAJEET
SAHU
MAC No. 428 of 2020
1 - Nasihat Khan S/o Hasan Khan Aged About 45 Years
2 - Jamila Begum W/o Nasihat Khan Aged About 38 Years
3 - Shabana Bano D/o Nasihat Khan Aged About 19 Years
All R/o Chantideeh, Sarkanda, Police Station Sarkanda, Tahsil And District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
... Appellants
Versus
1 - Pankaj Kumar Patel S/o Mata Prasad Patel R/o Village Savitripur,
Bartikalan, Police Station Basantpur, Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur
Chhattisgarh (Driver of The Vehicle Car No. C.G.-15 CV-5550)
2 - Vikram Patel S/o Teerthvasi Patel R/o Village Bartikhurd, Bartikalan,
Police Station Basantpur, Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur
Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Vehicle Car No. C.G.-15 CV-5550).
3 - Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch
Manager Branch Office Chamber Tower, Mowa, Near Over Bridge, G.E.
Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Vehicle
Car No. C.G.-15 CV-5550)
4 - Shastri Auto Mobiles Through Proprietor Ram Mandir Road, Ambikapur,
District Surguja Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellants : Shri Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate.
For Respondents 1&2 : Shri Rahul Mishra, Advocate.
For Respondent No.3 : Shri Anupam Dubey, Advocate.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Judgment on Board

2
29.10.2026
1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(in short, the MV Act) has been filed by the appellants seeking
enhancement of compensation against the award dated 22.11.2019
passed by the IInd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur
(in short, the Tribunal) in Claim Case No.155 of 2018, whereby an
amount of 9,47,200/- has been awarded in favour of claimants as
compensation and liability to pay compensation was fastened upon
non applicants No.1,2 & 4 as per physical copy of the award available
in the original record of Tribunal. It is also a dispute in the present
appeal that in certified copy of the same award dated 22.11.2019
issued to respondents after downloading from official website of the
Tribunal, it discloses that liability to pay compensation to the claimants
has been fastened upon non applicant No.3/Insurance Company,
however, the amount of compensation is one and the same.
2. Facts of the case are that, the appellants are the claimants before the
Tribunal who were prosecuting a Claim Case for grant of
compensation of Rs.15,50,000/- on account of death of Suleman who
was son of claimants No.1&2 and brother of claimant No.3. He died on
26.01.2017 in a motor accident that occurred on that day when he was
going through his motorcycle along with his friend Karan Dewangan
from Bilaspur to Bijuri. Near village Pipardol the offending vehicle Car
bearing registration No.CG-15-CV-5550 dashed his motorcycle by
rash and negligent driving his Car on account of which Suleman
received grievous injuries and ultimately died. The claimants filed their
claim application before the Tribunal for grant of compensation with

3
the pleading that they were dependent upon the income of deceased;
the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- to 15,000/- per month by
selling vegetables; he was aged about 20 years at the time of accident
and claimants are deprived from their benefit on account of sudden
death of the deceased. After trial of the claim application, recording
evidence of the parties and hearing them the Tribunal assessed the
total compensation of Rs.9,47,200/- in favour of the claimants. The
dispute arose here with respect to fastening of liability to pay
compensation for the reason that in the physical copy of award
available in original record, in paragraph 24 the liability is fastened
upon the non applicants No.1,2&4 and the insurance company has
been exonerated, whereas in the certified copy obtained by the
respondents No.1&2 which was prepared after downloading from the
official website of the Tribunal, the liability is shown to have been
fastened upon non applicant No.3/Insurance Company as appears in
paragraph 24 of the said certified copy in which the non applicant
No.3/insurance company has been held liable to pay compensation is
reflected in paragraph 24 of the said certified copy issued to
respondent No.3 which was delivered on 27.11.2025 in copying
application express No.9943 of 2025. Being aggrieved by the
impugned award, the claimants have filed the present appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation as well as the liability fastened upon
non applicants No.1,2&4 to pay compensation.
3. On notice being served upon the respondents, the respondents
No.1&2 appeared in the proceeding and filed a copy of xerox copy of
the award dated 30.06.2022 passed by the IInd Additional Motor

4
Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, in Claim No.237 of 2018 which was
arising out of same accident along with covering memo dated
16.10.2025. Thereafter, he filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27
of CPC on 04.11.2025 for taking additional evidence on record i.e.
certified copy of the award dated 30.06.2022 passed by IInd Additional
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No.237 of
2018, to show that in another claim case arising out of same accident,
the insurance company has been held liable to pay the compensation
thought it relates to other claimants.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/insurance company
has also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC on
10.11.2025 by which he filed a document related to execution
proceeding initiated before the Tribunal in execution case No.1083 of
2023 in which the xerox copy of the same award dated 22.11.2019
passed by IInd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, in
Claim Case No.155 of 2018, has been annexed. As per this xerox
copy of the same award which is a part of execution case No.1083 of
2023, paragraph 24 of the award reflects that liability to pay
compensation is fastened upon non applicant No.3/insurance
company. Further, on 26.11.2025, the counsel for respondent No.3
filed another covering memo along with document which is the copy of
award dated 30.06.2022 passed by IInd Additional Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, in Claim Case No.237 of 2018, in which the
liability to pay compensation was fastened upon non applicant
Nos.1&2. It is also found on the record that on 16.12.2025, the
respondent No.3/insurance company again filed another application

5
under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC along with certified copy of the same
award dated 22.11.2019 which was passed by IInd Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No.155 of 2018
having copying application express No.9943 of 2025, delivered on
27.11.2025 and as per paragraph 24 of the said award the liability to
pay compensation is fastened upon the insurance company.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the
Tribunal has erred in passing the award by assessing the
compensation on lower side. The deceased was earing Rs.10,000/- to
15,000/- per month at the time of accident by occupation of selling
vegetable which has not been properly considered by the Tribunal and
only Rs.200/- per day i.e. Rs.6000/- per month has been considered
as his income by the Tribunal which is on lower side. Even if there is
no any documentary evidence with respect to his income, the
minimum wages prevailing on the date of accident should have been
taken into consideration for determining the compensation on account
of his death. The compensation on other heads have also not been
properly considered. Therefore, the compensation is liable to be
enhanced in accordance applicable rules and as per judgments
passed by the Supreme Court in cases of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors, 2017(16)SCC 680, Sarla
Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. 2009 (6) SCC
121 and Megma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanuram @
Churu Ram & Ors. 2018(18) SCC 130.
6. He would also submit that looking to discrepancy in two sets of the
same award i.e. physical copy and the copy obtained through online

6
mode, the liability to pay compensation should have been fastened
upon the insurance company with liberty to recover the same from the
owner and driver of the vehicle, if they succeed in discharging their
burden that vehicle was not insured at the time of accident and
claimants should not suffer because of dispute between the insurance
company and owner & driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the
appeal may be allowed to that extent.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
No.1&2 opposes and submissions made by the counsel for the
appellants and would submit that in the certified copy obtained by the
respondents No.1&2 which has been downloaded from the official
website, they have been exonerated to pay compensation and liability
is fastened upon the insurance company. The respondents No.1&2
paid the amount of premium to purchase insurance policy of the
subject vehicle to respondent No.4-Shashtri Automobiles, and it is their
duty to purchase the policy of vehicle well within time. Non applicant
No.1&2 have paid the amount of premium to continue the earlier policy
for its renewal. Therefore, the respondents No.1&2 are not liable to
pay any compensation to the claimants and it is only the insurance
company who is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. In
addition, he would further submit that looking to discrepancy in two
sets of the award available in the case, the matter may be remitted
back to the Tribunal by allowing the application filed under Order 41
Rule 27 CPC so that the parties may be provided proper opportunity to
lead evidence with respect to their liability to pay compensation.

7
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3/insurance
company would also submit that in the physical copy of the award
available in the case, the insurance company has been exonerated
and the same award has been challenged by the appellants in the
present appeal, however, the claimants have also initiated execution
proceeding before the Tribunal in which they have filed a copy of
award obtained through online, in which the insurance company has
been held liable. In these two different sets of award, the claimants
themselves considered the liability to pay compensation is upon the
respondents No.1,2&4 and prosecuting the present appeal for
enhancement of compensation, which is on the basis of physical copy
of the award available on record and the same can be considered to
be an authentic copy of the award instead of considering the certified
copy obtained from website of the Tribunal. He would also submit that
the insurance company is defending their case with the pleading that
no insurance policy was issued in favour of offending vehicle on the
date of accident and the vehicle was not insured. Though on earlier
occasion the vehicle was insured, but on the date of accident the
policy was not renewed and was ineffective on that day. Therefore,
liability to pay the compensation cannot be fastened upon the
insurance company and the same has rightly been done by the
Tribunal as per the physical copy of the award available in the record.
He would also submit that to clarify discrepancy in two sets of same
award, the matter may be remitted back to the Tribunal to resolve the
controversy for which he has also filed an application under Order 41
Rule 27 CPC which is relevant piece of evidence in the case.

8
9. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents
annexed with the appeal, gone through the applications filed under
Order 41 Rule 27 CPC by the parties and also perused the original
record of the Tribunal.
10. The main controversy surfaced in the present appeal is two different
sets of same award. One is available in the form of physical copy of
the award while another in the form of certified copy obtained through
official website of the Tribunal. It is relevant here to note paragraph 24
of the award in both sets of impugned award.
11. Para 24 of the award dated 22.11.2019 which is available in the form
of physical copy of the award in the original record of Claim case,
reads as under:
“ 6 -
वादप्रश्न कमांक सहायता एवं वाद व्ययः
(24)
उपरोक्त विवेचना का सार यह हैं कि आवेदकगण अपना दावा अंतर्गत धारा
166 1988
मोटरयान अधिनियम अंशतः प्रमाणित करने में सफल रहे हैं। फलतः
01, 02
पेश आवेदन पत्र स्वीकार कर आवेदकगण के पक्ष में एवं अनावेदक कमांक
04 :-
एवं के विरूद्ध निम्नलिखि त एवार्ड दिया जाता है
01. -01, 02 04
अनावेदक कमांक एवं संयुक्ततः एवं पृथकतः आवेदकगण को
9,47,200/ ( ) 6
क्षतिपूर्ति राशि नौ लाख सैतालिस हजार दो सौ दावा पेश दिनांक से
,
प्रतिशत वार्षिक की दर से ब्याज रकम अदायगी तिथि तक अधिनिर्णय दिनांक से
30
दिनों के अंदर इस अधिकरण के खाता में जमा कर आवेदकगण को प्रदान
करेगा।
02.
अवार्ड राशि इस अधिकरण के खाता में जमा होने पर आवेदकगण को प्राप्त
9,47,200/ (
होने वाली कुल क्षतिपूर्ति राशि नौ लाख सैतालिस हजार दो सौ में से
01 02 4-4,00,000/- ( - ),
आवेदक कमांक एवं को चार चार लाख रूपये तथा
-3 1,47,000/- ( )
आवेदिका कमांक को एक लाख सैतालिस हजार रूपये दिलाया
जाना उचित होगा।
01 02 2-2,00,000/-
आवेदक क्रमांक एवं को प्राप्त होने वाली राशि में से रूपये
-1 1,00,000/- 5-5
तथा आवेदक कमांक को प्राप्त होने वाली राशि में से रूपये वर्ष
तक की अवधि के लिए सावधि खाते में जमा किया जावे। शेष रााशि एकाउंट पेयी
चेक के माध्यम से आवेदकगण को उनके बचत बैंक खाते में जमा कर प्रदान किया
जावे। आवेदकगण को सावधि जमा राशि पर कोई ऋण अथवा अग्रिम देय नहीं
होगा। सावधि जमा राशि पर बैंक के नियमानुसार ब्याज राशि प्राप्त सकते हैं।

9
04. ,
यदि अंतरिम क्षतिपूर्ति राशि आवेदकगण को प्रदान किया गया हो तो उसे कुल
क्षतिपूर्ति राशि में समायोजित किया जायें।
05. 500/-500/ ,
प्रत्येक पक्ष का वाद व्यय रूपये नियत किया जाता है अनावेदक
02
क्रमांक अपना एवं आवेदकगण का वाद व्यय वहन करेगा। अधिवक्ता शुल्क
, "
प्रमाणित होने पर अथवा अनुसूची जो भी कम हो देय होगा।
12. Para 24 of the certified copy obtained by respondent No.3 through
copying application express No.9943 of 2025, delivered on 27.11.2025
and which has been filed by him along with application under Order 41
Rule 27 CPC, reads as under :-
“ 6 -
वादप्रश्न कमांक सहायता एवं वाद व्ययः
(24)
उपरोक्त विवेचना का सार यह हैं कि आवेदकगण अपना दावा अंतर्गत धारा
166 1988
मोटरयान अधिनियम अंशतः प्रमाणित करने में सफल रहे हैं। फलतः
02
पेश आवेदन पत्र स्वीकार कर आवेदकगण के पक्ष में एवं अनावेदक कमांक के
-
विरूद्ध निम्नलिखि त एवार्ड दिया जाता है
01. -03
अनावेदक कमांक बीमा कंपनी आवेदकगण को क्षतिपूर्ति राशि
9,47,200/ ( ) 6
नौ लाख सैतालिस हजार दो सौ दावा पेश दिनांक से प्रतिशत
, 30
वार्षिक की दर से ब्याज रकम अदायगी तिथि तक अधिनिर्णय दिनांक से दिनों
के अंदर इस अधिकरण के खाता में जमा कर आवेदकगण को प्रदान करेगा।
02.
अवार्ड राशि इस अधिकरण के खाता में जमा होने पर आवेदकगण को प्राप्त
9,47,200/ ( )
होने वाली कुल क्षतिपूर्ति राशि नौ लाख सैतालिस हजार दो सौ में से
01 02 4-4,00,000/- ( - ), -3
आवेदक क्रमांक एवं को चार चार लाख रूपये कमांक
1,47,000/- ( )
को आवेदिका तथा एक लाख सैतालिस हजार रूपये दिलाया जाना
उचित होगा।
01 02 2-2,00,000/-
आवेदक क्रमांक एवं को प्राप्त होने वाली राशि में से रूपये
-1 1,00,000/- 5-5
तथा आवेदक कमांक को प्राप्त होने वाली राशि में से रूपये वर्ष
तक की अवधि के लिए सावधि खाते में जमा किया जावे। शेष रााशि एकाउंट पेयी
चेक के माध्यम से आवेदकगण को उनके बचत बैंक खाते में जमा कर प्रदान किया
जावे। आवेदकगण को सावधि जमा राशि पर कोई ऋण अथवा अग्रिम देय नहीं
होगा। सावधि जमा राशि पर बैंक के नियमानुसार व्याज राशि प्राप्त सकते हैं।
04. ,
यदि अंतरिम क्षतिपूर्ति राशि आवेदकगण को प्रदान किया गया हो तो उसे कुल
क्षतिपूर्ति राशि में समायोजित किया जायें।
05. 500/-500/ ,
प्रत्येक पक्ष का वाद व्यय रूपये नियत किया जाता है अनावेदक
02
कमांक अपना एवं आवेदकगण का वाद व्यय वहन करेगा। अधिवक्ता शुल्क
, "
प्रमाणित होने पर अथवा अनुसूची जो भी कम हो देय होगा।
13. On a comparative reading of both these sets of impugned award it
clearly reveals that in the physical copy of the award available in
original record of the Tribunal, the liability to pay compensation is

10
fastened upon the non applicants No.1,2&4 whereas, in the certified
copy obtained from the website of the Tribunal, the liability to pay
compensation is fastened upon the non applicant No.3/insurance
company.
14. When two different sets of award with respect to same claim and same
case number is available, it would be very difficult to decide the
controversy between the parties on the basis of either of it. The
certified copy obtained through official website is also a relevant piece
of document which is necessary for just decision of the case as to
whether the liability to pay compensation should be fastened upon the
insurance company or not. Though the respondent No.3 have not filed
any cross objection in the present appeal, yet while exercising the
provisions under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the permission for production
of additional evidence before the appellate court can be permitted for
the reason that the application is not restricted only to the appellants.
Order 41 Rule 27 CPC reads as under:
“ 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—
(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred
has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been
admitted, or
(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
(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,

11
the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be
produced, or witness to be examined.
(2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by
an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its
admission.”
15. In Wadi Vs. Amilal & Others, 2015(1)SCC677 , the Supreme Court
has held that irrespective of vigilance or diligence of the parties, the
appellate court can allow the production of additional evidence if the
documents are relevant and germane for just decision of the case. In
para 5 of the said judgment, it was observed as under:
“5. Now it is clear that Rule 27 deals with production of
additional evidence in the appellate court. The general principle
incorporated in Sub-rule (1) is that the parties to an appeal are
not entitled to produce additional evidence (oral or documentary)
in the appellate court to cure a lacuna or fill up a gap in a case.
The exceptions to that principle are enumerated thereunder in
Clauses (a), (a) and (b). We are concerned here with Clause (b)
which is an enabling provision. It says that if the appellate court
requires any document to be produced or any witness to be
examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, it may allow such
document to be produced or witness to be examined. The
requirement or need is that of the appellate court bearing in
mind that the interest of justice is paramount. If it feels that
pronouncing a judgment in the absence of such evidence would
result in a defective decision and to pronounce an effective
judgment admission of such evidence is necessary, Clause (b)
enables it to adopt that course. Invocation of Clause (b) does not
depend upon the vigilance or negligence of the parties for it is
not meant for them. It is for the appellant to resort to it when on
a consideration of material on record it feels that admission of
additional evidence is necessary to pronounce a satisfactory
judgment in the case.”
16. In view of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Supreme Court, the
certified copy filed by the respondent No.3 along with application
under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is very relevant for proper adjudication of
dispute between the parties with respect to liability to pay
compensation to the claimants. Therefore, this court deem it
appropriate to allow the application filed by the respondent No.3 under
Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and to remit back the matter to the Tribunal for

12
deciding the case afresh after affording proper opportunity of hearing
to the parties concerned.
17. So far as the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants with
respect to enhancement of compensation is concerned, this court finds
that the Tribunal has assessed the compensation on the basis of
income of Rs.200/- per day holding that there is no documentary
evidence of registration of shop or otherwise filed by the claimants and
notional income has been taken into consideration for assessment of
the compensation, however, the Claims Tribunal, while assessing the
compensation on account of death of deceased Suleman, the
minimum wages prevailing on the date of accident should have been
taken into consideration by the Tribunal along with other applicable
amount towards conventional head including future prospects as per
the law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases of Pranay Sethi
(Supra) Sarla Verma (Supra) and Megma General Insurance
Company Ltd. (Supra).
18. Since the matter is being remitted back to the Tribunal for deciding the
claim case afresh after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the
parties concerned, this court does not deem it appropriate to
recalculate the compensation which was to be awarded in favour of
claimants leaving it open for the Tribunal to re-determine the
compensation in accordance with prevailing law and minimum wages
prescribed on the date of accident.
19. Accordingly, IA No.07/2025, application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC
is allowed. The certified copy of the award dated 22.11.2019 passed in
Claim Case No.155 of 2018 which has been issued through copying

13
application express No.9943 of 2025, delivered on 27.11.2025, is
being taken on record.
20. Accordingly, the original copy of the award impugned dated
22.11.2019 as well as web copy of the same award (dated 22.11.2019)
downloaded from the official website of the Tribunal, are set aside to
the aforesaid extent. The matter is remitted back to the concerned
Claims Tribunal to decide the case afresh after providing proper
opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The parties are at
liberty to lead further evidence and to file additional documents in
support of their case. The parties shall appear before the concerned
Claims Tribunal on 19.11.2026 .
21. Registry is directed to send certified copy of the award filed by the
respondent No.3 on 16.12.2023 along with application under Order 41
Rule 27 CPC (IA No.07/2025), to the concerned Claims Tribunal along
with original record and the Tribunal shall proceed in the case in
accordance with law and decide the same after providing proper
opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
22. All the other pending applications are disposed of.
23. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
inder