Facts
The appellant-Insurance Company challenged the award passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba, in Claim Case No. 68/2017, which fastened liability upon the insurer to pay compensation for the death of Ramsai Kanwar.
Source reference: p. 2, para 1During the appeal, the Insurance Company filed applications under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC for additional evidence and Order 6 Rule 17 for amendment of the written statement.
Source reference: p. 3, para 2They sought to introduce a new plea that the deceased was a pillion rider and the policy was a "liability-only" policy, thereby exempting them from liability.
Source reference: p. 3, para 2Conversely, the claimants (Respondents 1–5) filed a cross-objection seeking enhancement of compensation, specifically regarding the denial of parental consortium to the children of the deceased.
Source reference: p. 2, para 1; p. 8, para 9Issues
Whether the Insurance Company can be permitted to amend its pleadings and lead additional evidence at the appellate stage regarding the nature of the insurance policy when such pleas were not raised before the Claims Tribunal.
Source reference: p. 4, para 5Whether the claimants are entitled to an enhancement of compensation under the head of parental consortium.
Source reference: p. 8, para 9Law Applied
The Court primarily applied Order 41 Rule 27 and Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding additional evidence and amendments at the appellate stage.
Source reference: p. 4-5, para 5It relied on the precedent in Iqbal Ahmed (dead) by Lrs. v. Abdul Shukoor (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1787), which establishes that additional evidence cannot be permitted in the absence of necessary pleadings to support it.
Source reference: p. 4-5, para 5It applied the principle from Gobind Singh v. Union of India (2026 SCC OnLine SC 339), which holds that parties do not have a vested right to lead additional evidence at the appellate stage, especially when the Court can render a reasoned judgment based on existing records.
Source reference: p. 6, para 6Reasoning
The Court observed that the Insurance Company’s plea regarding the "liability-only" nature of the policy and the deceased's status as a pillion rider was raised for the first time in the appeal.
Source reference: p. 4, para 5Applying Iqbal Ahmed, the Court reasoned that permitting additional evidence without foundational pleadings in the original written statement would be a "futile exercise" as such evidence would be of no legal consequence.
Source reference: p. 5, para 5Under the criteria of Gobind Singh, the Court found that the existing record was sufficient to decide the appeal, meaning the conditions for admitting additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 were not satisfied.
Source reference: p. 6, para 6-7Consequently, both the application for amendment and additional evidence were rejected.
Source reference: p. 7, para 7Regarding the cross-objection, the Court found that three children of the deceased (Respondents 2, 4, and 5) were erroneously denied parental consortium by the Tribunal.
Source reference: p. 8, para 9Following standard legal norms, the Court determined they were entitled to ₹40,000 each.
Source reference: p. 8, para 11Holding
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, holding that new defenses cannot be introduced at the appellate stage through additional evidence in the absence of original pleadings.
The Court allowed the claimants' cross-objection in part, enhancing the compensation by ₹1,20,000 (totaling ₹46,77,582) to account for parental consortium for three claimants.
Source reference: p. 8, para 11The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of the claim application until realization, while all other conditions of the original award remain intact.
Source reference: p. 8, para 11Original Court PDF
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITEDvsSmt. Milapa Bai
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in