Two Award Copies Disagree On Insurer’s Liability, So Chhattisgarh HC Sends Family’s Claim Back To Tribunal for Fresh Decision

The appellants, the parents and sister of Suleman, appealed against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of ₹9,47,200 for his death in a road accident.

They sought enhancement, contending that the Tribunal had underestimated his income and compensation.

A separate dispute arose because the physical award in the Tribunal’s record fastened liability on the driver, owner and vehicle dealer, while a certified copy obtained from the Tribunal’s website fastened liability on the insurer.

The insurer and respondents 1 and 2 sought admission of additional documents under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, including copies of the disputed award and an award in a connected claim arising from the same accident.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against a Claims Tribunal award, while Section 166 governs the underlying claim for compensation.

Under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) CPC, an appellate court may admit additional evidence when it requires that evidence to pronounce judgment or for another substantial cause; the court must record its reasons under Rule 27(2).

In Wadi v. Amilal, (2015) 1 SCC 677, the Supreme Court explained that this power may be exercised where additional evidence is necessary for a satisfactory decision, irrespective of a party’s diligence or negligence.

For assessing fatal-accident compensation, the court referred to National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, concerning, among other matters, future prospects and conventional heads of compensation; it also stated that the applicable minimum wages on the accident date should be considered.

The physical award and the certified copy differed on the identity of the party liable to pay compensation, and the record contained other documents bearing on the inconsistency.

Because this conflict prevented the appellate court from reliably determining liability, the certified copy was relevant and necessary to adjudicate the appeal; the court therefore admitted it under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

As to quantum, the Tribunal had used an income of ₹200 per day, but the High Court considered that minimum wages applicable on the accident date, together with the relevant compensation principles, should inform reassessment.

Since the matter was being remitted to resolve the liability dispute and reconsider the claim, the High Court did not itself recalculate compensation.

It set aside the impugned award to the relevant extent and remitted the matter to the Claims Tribunal for fresh decision, with liberty to the parties to lead further evidence and file additional documents.

The Tribunal was directed to determine liability and reassess compensation in accordance with law, including the applicable minimum wages and compensation principles; the parties were directed to appear before it on 19 November 2026.