FAO-2519-2026 (O&M) & FAO-2544-2026 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 20.07.2026 i) FAO-2519-2026 (O&M) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Ankita and others ...Respondents ii) FAO-2544-2026 (O&M) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Meera and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) CM-9138-CII-2026 & CM-9137-CII-2026 in FAO-2519-2026 Heard. For the reasons men2oned in the applica2ons, the same are allowed and delay of 14 days in filing the appeal; and delay of 37 days in refiling the appeal are hereby condoned. CM-9271-CII-2026 & CM-9270-CII-2026 in FAO-2544-2026 Heard. For the reasons men2oned in the applica2ons, the same are allowed and delay of 08 days in filing the appeal; and delay of 37 days in refiling the appeal are hereby condoned. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.21 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2519-2026 (O&M) & FAO-2544-2026 (O&M) [2] CM-9139-CII-2026 in and FAO-2519-2026; and FAO-2544-2026 Both these appeals have been preferred by the appellant– Insurance Company assailing the common award dated 29.10.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, whereby two claim pe22ons arising out of the same motor vehicular accident were decided by a common award. CM-9139-CII-2026 : Applica2on under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC

2. Since iden2cal ques2ons arise in both the appeal, they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The appellant in FAO 2519-2026 seeks permission to produce by way of addi2onal evidence the verifica2on report dated 05.01.2026 (Annexure A-1) and the alleged verifica2on report dated 10.01.2026 (Annexure A-2) rela2ng to the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effec2ve driving licence on the date of the accident, therefore, the Insurance Company ought to have been granted recovery rights against the owner and driver. It is submiAed that the aforesaid documents could not be produced before the learned Tribunal and are necessary for the just adjudica2on of the controversy. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and carefully examined the documents sought to be produced. 6. Annexure A-1 is merely a communica2on addressed by one Sh. Baljinder Singh BhaA, Advocate, to the Secretary, Licensing Authority-cum-RTA, Jalandhar reques2ng verifica2on of a driving licence purportedly standing in the name of Ranjit Singh Pannu. Annexure A-2 is a YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.21 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2519-2026 (O&M) & FAO-2544-2026 (O&M) [3]

communica2on allegedly sent by the said Advocate to the Manager, Legal Hub, Oriental Insurance Company Limited sta2ng that, according to the informa2on received from the Licensing Authority, no online record pertaining to the licence in ques2on was available. 7. Even assuming that these documents are permiAed to be taken on record, they do not advance the case of the appellant in any manner. 8. To begin with, the driver of the offending vehicle, as pleaded in the claim pe22on and throughout the proceedings before the Tribunal, is Ramji Pannu and not Ranjit Singh Pannu. Thus, the very documents sought to be produced relate to a person, whose iden2ty does not correspond with the pleadings on record. 9. Even otherwise, learned counsel fairly concedes that neither Sh. Baljinder Singh BhaA, Advocate, who allegedly obtained the verifica2on, nor any official from the office of the Licensing Authority, Jalandhar, was examined before the learned Tribunal for proving the alleged verifica2on. Consequently, neither the request nor the alleged verifica2on report has ever been proved in accordance with law. 10. More importantly, the contents of Annexure A-2 do not establish that the driving licence produced before the learned Tribunal as Ex.RW1/1 was forged, fabricated or never issued by the Licensing Authority.

11. The report merely records that no online record of the licence was available. The absence of an online entry cannot, by itself, lead to the irresis2ble conclusion that the licence had never been issued. Numerous licences issued prior to computerisa2on or licences whose records have not been digi2zed may not necessarily be reflected in the online database. Therefore, a report regarding non-availability of an online record cannot be equated with a categorical cer2fica2on from the Licensing Authority that no YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.21 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2519-2026 (O&M) & FAO-2544-2026 (O&M) [4] such licence was ever issued. 12. The burden to establish breach of the policy condi2on squarely rested upon the Insurance Company. Such burden could have been discharged only by leading cogent and admissible evidence before the learned Tribunal, par2cularly by summoning the concerned official along with the original licensing record. That admiAedly was never done. 13. It is equally well seAled that addi2onal evidence at the appellate stage cannot be permiAed merely to fill up omissions or lacunae leL by a party during the trial. The jurisdic2on under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC is excep2onal in nature and can be exercised only when the Court finds that the proposed evidence could not, despite due diligence, be produced earlier, or that such evidence is required by the appellate Court to pronounce judgment effec2vely.

14. In the present case, none of the above con2ngency exists. The appellant had every opportunity to summon the concerned official from the Licensing Authority during the proceedings before the Tribunal. The omission to do so cannot now be permiAed to be rec2fied by producing documents which, in any event, do not establish the alleged breach of the insurance policy. 15. Consequently, finding no merit in the applica2on, the same is hereby dismissed. Main Appeals 16. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the only conten2on sought to be urged in these appeals relates to the alleged invalidity of the driver's licence and the consequent en2tlement of the Insurance Company to recovery rights. Since the applica2ons for addi2onal evidence have been dismissed, no other issue survives for considera2on. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.21 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2519-2026 (O&M) & FAO-2544-2026 (O&M) [5] 17. The submission is recorded. 18. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the appellant has failed to establish that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effec2ve driving licence on the date of the accident or that there was any breach of the terms and condi2ons of the insurance policy. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal declining recovery rights, therefore, calls for no interference.

19. Consequently, finding no merit in either of the appeals, the same are hereby dismissed. A photocopy of this judgment be placed on the file of the connected appeal. 20.07.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.21 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-2519-2026 (O&M) & FAO-2544-2026 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 20.07.2026 i) FAO-2519-2026 (O&M) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Ankita and others ...Respondents ii) FAO-2544-2026 (O&M) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Meera and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) CM-9138-CII-2026 & CM-9137-CII-2026 in FAO-2519-2026 Heard. For the reasons men2oned in the applica2ons, the same are allowed and delay of 14 days in filing the appeal; and delay of 37 days in refiling the appeal are hereby condoned. CM-9271-CII-2026 & CM-9270-CII-2026 in FAO-2544-2026 Heard. For the reasons men2oned in the applica2ons, the same are allowed and delay of 08 days in filing the appeal; and delay of 37 days in refiling the appeal are hereby condoned. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.21 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2519-2026 (O&M) & FAO-2544-2026 (O&M) [2] CM-9139-CII-2026 in and FAO-2519-2026; and FAO-2544-2026 Both these appeals have been preferred by the appellant– Insurance Company assailing the common award dated 29.10.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, whereby two claim pe22ons arising out of the same motor vehicular accident were decided by a common award. CM-9139-CII-2026 : Applica2on under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC

2. Since iden2cal ques2ons arise in both the appeal, they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The appellant in FAO 2519-2026 seeks permission to produce by way of addi2onal evidence the verifica2on report dated 05.01.2026 (Annexure A-1) and the alleged verifica2on report dated 10.01.2026 (Annexure A-2) rela2ng to the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effec2ve driving licence on the date of the accident, therefore, the Insurance Company ought to have been granted recovery rights against the owner and driver. It is submiAed that the aforesaid documents could not be produced before the learned Tribunal and are necessary for the just adjudica2on of the controversy. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and carefully examined the documents sought to be produced. 6. Annexure A-1 is merely a communica2on addressed by one Sh. Baljinder Singh BhaA, Advocate, to the Secretary, Licensing Authority-cum-RTA, Jalandhar reques2ng verifica2on of a driving licence purportedly standing in the name of Ranjit Singh Pannu. Annexure A-2 is a YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.21 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2519-2026 (O&M) & FAO-2544-2026 (O&M) [3]

communica2on allegedly sent by the said Advocate to the Manager, Legal Hub, Oriental Insurance Company Limited sta2ng that, according to the informa2on received from the Licensing Authority, no online record pertaining to the licence in ques2on was available. 7. Even assuming that these documents are permiAed to be taken on record, they do not advance the case of the appellant in any manner. 8. To begin with, the driver of the offending vehicle, as pleaded in the claim pe22on and throughout the proceedings before the Tribunal, is Ramji Pannu and not Ranjit Singh Pannu. Thus, the very documents sought to be produced relate to a person, whose iden2ty does not correspond with the pleadings on record. 9. Even otherwise, learned counsel fairly concedes that neither Sh. Baljinder Singh BhaA, Advocate, who allegedly obtained the verifica2on, nor any official from the office of the Licensing Authority, Jalandhar, was examined before the learned Tribunal for proving the alleged verifica2on. Consequently, neither the request nor the alleged verifica2on report has ever been proved in accordance with law. 10. More importantly, the contents of Annexure A-2 do not establish that the driving licence produced before the learned Tribunal as Ex.RW1/1 was forged, fabricated or never issued by the Licensing Authority.

11. The report merely records that no online record of the licence was available. The absence of an online entry cannot, by itself, lead to the irresis2ble conclusion that the licence had never been issued. Numerous licences issued prior to computerisa2on or licences whose records have not been digi2zed may not necessarily be reflected in the online database. Therefore, a report regarding non-availability of an online record cannot be equated with a categorical cer2fica2on from the Licensing Authority that no YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.21 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2519-2026 (O&M) & FAO-2544-2026 (O&M) [4] such licence was ever issued. 12. The burden to establish breach of the policy condi2on squarely rested upon the Insurance Company. Such burden could have been discharged only by leading cogent and admissible evidence before the learned Tribunal, par2cularly by summoning the concerned official along with the original licensing record. That admiAedly was never done. 13. It is equally well seAled that addi2onal evidence at the appellate stage cannot be permiAed merely to fill up omissions or lacunae leL by a party during the trial. The jurisdic2on under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC is excep2onal in nature and can be exercised only when the Court finds that the proposed evidence could not, despite due diligence, be produced earlier, or that such evidence is required by the appellate Court to pronounce judgment effec2vely.

14. In the present case, none of the above con2ngency exists. The appellant had every opportunity to summon the concerned official from the Licensing Authority during the proceedings before the Tribunal. The omission to do so cannot now be permiAed to be rec2fied by producing documents which, in any event, do not establish the alleged breach of the insurance policy. 15. Consequently, finding no merit in the applica2on, the same is hereby dismissed. Main Appeals 16. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the only conten2on sought to be urged in these appeals relates to the alleged invalidity of the driver's licence and the consequent en2tlement of the Insurance Company to recovery rights. Since the applica2ons for addi2onal evidence have been dismissed, no other issue survives for considera2on. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.21 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2519-2026 (O&M) & FAO-2544-2026 (O&M) [5] 17. The submission is recorded. 18. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the appellant has failed to establish that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effec2ve driving licence on the date of the accident or that there was any breach of the terms and condi2ons of the insurance policy. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal declining recovery rights, therefore, calls for no interference.

19. Consequently, finding no merit in either of the appeals, the same are hereby dismissed. A photocopy of this judgment be placed on the file of the connected appeal. 20.07.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.21 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document