Case Note & Summary
The applicants/appellants, Mr. Narsinvrao S. Chawan @ Swapnil and Mrs. Ranjana Chawan, filed an appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) which had granted compensation to the respondent, Mr. Janu Babuso Naik, for loss of salary for six months on the finding that the respondent was absent from work. The applicants sought to produce a certified extract of the Pay Bill Register of the Public Works Department as additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The document, obtained under the Right to Information Act, showed that the respondent had actually drawn salary from March 2013 to February 2014, thereby indicating no actual loss of income. The respondent opposed the application on the ground that the document was not relevant and that the applicants had not shown sufficient cause for not producing it earlier. The court, after hearing both sides, allowed the application, holding that the document was a public document, relevant for just decision, and the applicants had demonstrated due diligence in obtaining it. The court directed that the document be taken on record and the appeal be heard on merits.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Additional Evidence - Order 41 Rule 27 CPC - Public Document - The applicants sought to produce a certified extract of the Pay Bill Register of the Public Works Department to show that the respondent had drawn salary during the period he was absent from work, which was relevant to rebut the finding of loss of salary. The document was a public document not in the applicants' possession and obtained under the RTI Act. The court allowed the application, holding that the document was necessary for just decision and the applicants had shown sufficient cause for not producing it earlier. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the certified extract of the Pay Bill Register obtained under the RTI Act should be allowed as additional evidence in appeal to rebut the finding that the respondent suffered loss of salary for six months.
Final Decision
The court allowed the application for additional evidence, directed that the certified extract of the Pay Bill Register be taken on record, and ordered that the appeal be heard on merits.
Law Points
- Additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC
- Right to Information Act
- public document
- Motor Vehicles Act claim for loss of salary
Case Details
First Appeal No. 102 of 2016 and Misc. Civil Application No. 463 of 2017
Shri J. Abreu Lobo for the Applicants/Appellants, Shri N. Govekar for the Respondent
Mr. Narsinvrao S. Chawan @ Swapnil and Mrs. Ranjana Chawan
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and application for additional evidence.
Remedy Sought
The applicants sought to produce a certified extract of the Pay Bill Register as additional evidence to show that the respondent had drawn salary during the period of absence, thereby rebutting the finding of loss of salary.
Filing Reason
The applicants wanted to adduce additional evidence to challenge the MACT's finding that the respondent suffered loss of salary for six months.
Previous Decisions
The MACT had awarded the respondent an amount of Rs. 83,148/- towards loss of salary for six months on the finding that the respondent was absent from work.
Issues
Whether the certified extract of the Pay Bill Register should be allowed as additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicants argued that the document was a public document, not in their possession, obtained under RTI Act, and necessary for just decision. The respondent opposed on grounds of relevance and lack of sufficient cause.
Ratio Decidendi
A document which is a public record, obtained under the RTI Act, and relevant to rebut a finding on loss of salary, is admissible as additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC if the applicant shows sufficient cause for not producing it earlier and the document is necessary for just decision.
Judgment Excerpts
The document in question was a public document of which the applicant had no knowledge nor was it in their possession and which was procured only after recourse to the provisions of the Right to Information Act.
This document was therefore necessary and relevant to establish that the respondent had actually drawn the salary during the relevant period and that there was no loss of income.
Procedural History
The MACT awarded compensation to the respondent including Rs. 83,148/- for loss of salary. The applicants filed an appeal and subsequently an application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to produce the Pay Bill Register extract.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 41 Rule 27
- Right to Information Act, 2005:
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
