Remand for de novo consideration allowed to admit additional evidence regarding vehicle ownership and victim’s income.

On October 31, 2021, Rajendra Yadav (the deceased) was struck by a test car (No. CG-02-7498) driven by Dinesh Kumar Yadav, leading to his death

The deceased’s mother and sisters (claimants) filed a claim under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Durg, awarded ₹16,13,600/- but held only the driver liable, finding that the claimants failed to prove that the State Urban Development Agency (SUDA) was the registered owner

Both parties appealed: the driver (MA(C) 2470/2024) sought to prove SUDA's ownership through additional documents, and the claimants (MA(C) 59/2025) sought to produce salary slips to prove the deceased's actual income, which the MACT had previously disregarded for lack of examiner testimony

1. Whether the additional documents regarding vehicle ownership and the deceased's income should be admitted as evidence at the appellate stage under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC

2. Whether the matter should be remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh determination of liability and compensation based on such additional evidence

The Court primarily applied Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which governs the production of additional evidence in an Appellate Court.

It stipulates that while parties are generally not entitled to produce additional evidence, the Court may allow it if: (a) the lower court refused evidence that ought to have been admitted; (aa) the party establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced at the time of the decree; or (b) the Appellate Court requires the document/witness to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause

The Court observed that to ensure a "just and reasonable" resolution of the motor accident claim, the actual ownership of the offending vehicle and the true income of the deceased must be established

The Court found that the driver had produced reports indicating SUDA/Sudesh Verma as the competent authorities/owners, which the Tribunal had previously rejected.

Furthermore, the claimants’ salary certificates (Ex. P-20) were originally marked but not legally admitted due to procedural lapses (non-examination of the issuer), hindering a fair assessment of dependency.

Applying the principles of Order 41 Rule 27, the High Court determined that admitting these documents was necessary for a "just" adjudication and to correctly identify the parties liable for payment

The cases were remanded to the MACT, Durg, with directions to: (i) take the additional documents on record; (ii) provide SUDA and Sudesh Verma a fair opportunity for a hearing; and (iii) allow both parties to lead additional evidence to decide the matter afresh and expeditiously. The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on June 29, 2026