LexStreakRead free →
Supreme Court of India· 19 August 2026

May an Appellate Court under the Motor Vehicles Act admit additional evidence of the deceased’s income at a belated stage?

REENA v. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS
2026 INSC 889 · Civil Appeal No. 10755 of 2026
Coram: S.V.N. Bhatti; N.V. Anjaria
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow Motor Vehicles Act, 1988📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

Yes. Under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, an Appellate Court may take additional evidence on record where required to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause; given that the MV Act is a beneficial, welfare-oriented legislation and Section 169 permits a summary procedure, belated additional evidence bearing on just compensation under Section 168 may be received.

Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — compensation for death and injury — contributory negligence — additional evidence on appeal — criminal acquittal does not control MACT finding — Held: A benefit-of-doubt acquittal of the bus driver in the criminal trial does not displace the prima facie case of rash and negligent driving established by the FIR and Charge Sheet; criminal and MACT proceedings operate on different standards of proof, and the Tribunal's finding attributing the accident to the bus driver's negligence was restored. (¶20, 22.1) additional evidence on appeal — beneficial legislation — Held further: An Appellate Court may admit additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) CPC where necessary to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause; given the welfare-oriented character of the MV Act and the summary procedure under Section 169, belated additional evidence of income was admitted to determine just compensation under Section 168. (¶24) compensation enhanced — Held further: Compensation for the death of the claimant's husband was enhanced to Rs. 50,81,876 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition; the appeals were allowed/confirmed as modified accordingly. (¶28-30)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 24In our view, the High Court ought to have allowed the additional evidence, at least for the limited purpose of determining the just and fair compensation to which the Claimant is entitled. Under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, an Appellate Court is empowered to take additional evidence on record if it requires the 19 documents “to enable it to pronounce judgment” or for “any other substantial cause.” Further, the MV Act is a beneficial, welfare-oriented legislation designed to protect accident victims and their families. Section 169 of the MV Act states that Tribunals may follow a summary procedure as they may deem fit. The documents, such as the Bank of Baroda current account inquiry record and commercial software invoices, are relevant to determine the statutory mandate of “just compensation” under Section 168 of the MV Act.
Acts & Sections
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of REENA v. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Does a benefit-of-doubt acquittal of a driver in a criminal trial foreclose a finding of rash and negligent driving against him in a subsequent Motor Vehicles Act compensation claim?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections