Additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is inadmissible without foundational pleadings in the original proceedings.

The Appellant/Insurance Company challenged an award dated 14/01/2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, which granted Rs. 5,05,600/- to the claimants for the death of Rambai in a motor accident.

The Appellant contended that the deceased was an occupant in the offending vehicle and, since the insurance policy was a "liability only" policy, the risk of passengers was not covered.

Along with the appeal, the Appellant filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to introduce the insurance policy as additional evidence to prove the lack of coverage.

1. Whether an appellant can seek to lead additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC when the underlying facts supporting such evidence were not specifically pleaded in the original written statement.

2. Whether the Insurance Company can be held liable for compensation if the policy coverage for occupants was not specifically contested during the trial.

The Court primarily applied Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC regarding the production of additional evidence in the Appellate Court.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) by LRs. and Anr. v. Abdul Shukoor (2025), which established that a court must first examine the pleadings to ensure the case sought to be set up by additional evidence was actually pleaded in the original trial; otherwise, such evidence is inconsequential.

Furthermore, the Court cited Gobind Singh and Others v. Union of India and Others (2026), affirming that parties do not possess a vested or automatic right to seek admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage, and such provisions cannot be invoked if the court can render a judgment based on the existing record.

The Court found that the Appellant’s written statement before the Claims Tribunal lacked any specific pleading regarding the nature of the policy being "liability only" or the exclusion of risk for occupants.

Applying the principles from Iqbal Ahmed, the Court reasoned that without necessary pleadings to support the evidence, permitting additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 would be a futile exercise.

The Court emphasized that the Appellant failed to lead any evidence regarding these policy limitations during the original proceedings.

Consequently, the Appellant was barred from raising a new defense for the first time at the appellate stage, as the additional evidence did not serve to fill a lacuna but rather attempted to construct a case that was never pleaded.

The Court held that the Insurance Company could not be permitted to introduce the insurance policy as additional evidence due to the absence of specific pleadings in the trial court.

The original award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was upheld, maintaining the liability of the Insurance Company.