Driving-licence verification obtained post-award may be admitted as additional evidence, subject to proof on remand.

Respondent No.1 sustained injuries in a road accident dated 26.02.2020 involving car No. MP-33-C-5893, allegedly driven by respondent No.2 and owned by respondent No.3. He filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of ₹14,00,000.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹1,25,322 with interest at 6% per annum from 19.09.2022 and imposed joint and several liability on the Insurance Company and respondents Nos.2 and 3.

The Insurance Company contended that respondent No.2 held a driving licence authorising him to drive only a geared motorcycle, whereas the offending vehicle was a car, constituting a breach of the insurance policy.

In appeal under Section 173(1) of the MV Act, the Insurance Company sought to introduce driving-licence verification as additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC read with Section 169 of the MV Act.

Whether the driving-licence verification of respondent No.2 could be admitted as additional evidence at the appellate stage under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

Whether, after admitting the verification report, the matter was required to be remanded to the Claims Tribunal to enable the parties to prove, contest, and adjudicate the alleged breach of the insurance-policy conditions.

The Court applied Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, which permits additional evidence in appeal only where the lower court improperly refused evidence, the evidence was unavailable despite due diligence, or the appellate court requires it to pronounce judgment or for another substantial cause.

Relying on Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148, the Court reiterated that additional evidence is an exception, cannot be admitted merely to fill lacunae, and must be allowed sparingly for a legally sufficient reason.

Under Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2022) 7 SCC 247, admission of additional documents does not automatically prove their existence, authenticity, genuineness, or contents; those matters must be established in accordance with law.

The Court also invoked Order XLI Rules 23 and 23-A CPC, which empower an appellate court to remand a matter where retrial or further adjudication is necessary.

The Insurance Company’s reliance on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Zaharulnisha, (2008) 12 SCC 385, reflected the substantive proposition that driving a vehicle without a licence valid for its category may constitute breach of the policy condition.

The Court found that the driving-licence verification report was not available to the Insurance Company during the pendency of the claim proceedings and had come into its possession only after the Tribunal’s award. Therefore, the case satisfied the due-diligence and substantial-cause requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, particularly because the document directly affected the alleged policy breach and the Insurance Company’s liability to indemnify the insured.

However, mere admission of the report did not establish its evidentiary value. Since the report had not been duly proved and respondents Nos.2 and 3 had not been afforded an opportunity to rebut it, the appellate court could not finally determine the issue of breach on the basis of the document alone.

Accordingly, the Court distinguished Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India, (2004) 10 SCC 779, where additional evidence had been sought merely to cure a party’s negligence, because in the present case the verification report was unavailable before the Tribunal.

It set aside the Tribunal’s award dated 15.12.2023 and remanded the matter to the Claims Tribunal for the limited purpose of proving the verification report, permitting the parties to lead evidence and contest the issue, and deciding afresh whether the alleged driving-licence deficiency constituted a breach of the insurance-policy conditions.

The Tribunal was directed to decide the remanded issue expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournments. The appeal and pending applications were accordingly disposed of.