A two-wheeler bundled policy covers pillion riders as occupants, subject to its terms.

The claimants sought compensation for the death of Karan Singh Kushwaha, who was injured in a motorcycle accident on 26 January 2020 and died on 28 January 2020.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹12,54,700 with interest.

The insurer appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking to introduce photographs and an investigator’s report as additional evidence to dispute the date of death.

It also argued that the policy was an Act Only policy that did not cover a pillion rider.

The claimants relied on the policy document, which described a long-term bundled policy.

Whether the insurer should be permitted under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to adduce additional evidence concerning the deceased’s date of death

Whether the insurer was liable under the policy for the death of a pillion rider

Order XLI Rule 27 CPC permits additional evidence in appeal only in the specified exceptional circumstances, including where the appellate court requires it to pronounce judgment or for another substantial cause; it is not a means to repair omissions in a party’s case.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148, requires the appellate court to assess the application at the hearing on the merits and admit evidence only where the rule’s conditions are met.

In considering the policy issue, the Court relied on the Madras High Court Division Bench decision in M/s. The New India Assurance Company Limited v. M. Chelliah and Others (25 March 2026), which held that a two-wheeler bundled policy’s third-party cover extended to occupants carried without hire or reward, subject to the policy terms.

The Court found that the Tribunal’s award rested on the evidence already on record and that it could decide the appeal without the insurer’s proposed additional evidence.

The asserted 2019 date of death was not supported by the pleadings in the Order XLI Rule 27 application or by the investigator’s report; accordingly, the insurer did not establish a basis for admitting the evidence.

On policy liability, the insurer had not pleaded or proved before the Tribunal that the policy excluded the pillion rider.

Further, the policy was a long-term bundled policy, effective from 29 January 2019 to 28 January 2024, and the accident occurred within the stated period.

The Court therefore rejected the insurer’s Act Only policy argument.

The appeal was dismissed, and any pending application was disposed of.