Consumer Commission can appreciate additional evidence on record at the stage of appeal and revision

National Commission in the matter of Branch Manager, Universal Sompo General Insurance Company vs. Didwania Exim Pvt Ltd. & Ors. (RP No. 533 of 2019), decided on 21.01.2020, has opined that additional evidence/ documents can be allowed to be presented before the Consumer Commission at the stage of appeal and revision only if the parties presenting the same prove that the documents or evidence was not in its knowledge or that despite exercise of due diligence could not be produced at the time when the decree appealed against was passed.

Facts

The National Commission was hearing a batch of references having identical facts wherein the vehicle of the Respondent Complainant, in each case, which was insured with the Petitioners/Opposite parties had met with an accident but despite efforts, the claim was denied by the Petitioners. On individual complaints being filed before it in each case, the District Forum allowed the complaints and directed that reliefs as claimed may be granted in favour of the Respondent. The Appeals preferred by the Petitioners before the State Commission were also dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition(s) were preferred.

Issue

The question in reference was whether in Appeal cases or Revision cases, the State Commission and/or the National Commission can exercise the powers of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and permit the parties to adduce/bring on record the additional documents.

Ratio

The National Commission referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Jiten K. Ajmera & Anr. Vs. Tejas Cooperative Housing Society wherein it was noted that the documents sought to be brought on record came into existence only after filing of the appeal before the State Commission and further observed that under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, a party can produce additional evidence at the appellate stage, if it establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence such evidence was not within its knowledge or could not even after the exercise of due diligence be produced by it at the time when the decree appealed against was passed.

Considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the five judge bench of the National Commission was of the opinion that either of the parties are entitled to produce additional evidence in Appeal and/or Revision Petition, at any stage, if it establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence such evidence was not in its knowledge and could not even after exercise of due diligence be produced by it at the time when the Consumer Complaint was decided.