ORDER: Saurabh Lavania, J. 1. Heard Sri Sanjay Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Harpal Singh Chadha, learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 2. Under appeal is the judgment and award dated 23.02.2015, passed by the Motor Accidents Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Lucknow (in short "Tribunal") in the Claim Petition No. 0000638/12 (Pankaj Srivastava and others v. New India Insurance Company Ltd. and others). 3. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 23.02.2015. 4. The facts, in brief, of the present case are that on 03.01.2012, the wife of the appellant No. 1 namely Smt. Sonali Srivastava, when she was going by her Scooty bearing No. U.P.-32 D.J.-8842 to discharge her duties as a Teacher in the Primary School at Kamlapur, met with an accident at Roshnabad Yadav Crossing, P.S.-Madiyaon, District-Lucknow with the Truck bearing No. U.P.-84T-0911. It was due to rash and careless driving of the Truck driver. On account of the accident, the wife of the appellant No. 1 namely Smt. Sonali Srivastava expired on spot. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged in regard to the incident at P.S. Madiyaon, Lucknow and postmortem was also carried out on 03.01.2012. The claimants-appellants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal. In support of the Claim Petition, several documents (documentary evidence) including the photocopy of the Bank Passbook i.e. paper no. C-14/3, Identity Card i.e. paper no. C-14/8, of the deceased Smt. Sonali Srivastava, which are part and parcel of the lower court record, were also filed. 5. A perusal of the Identity Card issued by the Basic Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow, reveals that the deceased Smt. Sonali Srivastava was the Assistant Teacher in the Primary School at Kamlapur. The Identity Card also reflects the basic pay of the deceased i.e. Rs. 5375/-. It is also evident from the copy of the Passbook, which is part and parcel of the lower Court record bearing paper no. C-14/5 that the deceased Smt. Sonali Srivastava was getting Rs. 25,385/- per month towards salary in hand. 6. The Identity Card also reflects the basic pay of the deceased i.e. Rs. 5375/-. It is also evident from the copy of the Passbook, which is part and parcel of the lower Court record bearing paper no. C-14/5 that the deceased Smt. Sonali Srivastava was getting Rs. 25,385/- per month towards salary in hand. 6. The Tribunal for the purposes of deciding the claim petition, framed the following issues:- ^^i{kdkjksa ds vfHkopuksa ds vk/kkj ij fuEufyf[kr fook|d fnukad 31-7-13 dks fojfpr fd;s x;s& 1- D;k fn0 03-01-2012 dks le; lqcg djhc 9-45 cts o LFkku jks'kukckn ;kno pkSjkgs ds ikl Fkkuk efM;kao tuin] tuin y[kuÅ ij ;kph la0&1 dh iRuh ;kph la0&2 o 3 dh eka Jherh lksukyh JhokLro dh Vªd la[;k& ;w0ih084&Vh&0911 }kjk mldh e`R;q gks x;h\ 2- D;k mijksDr nq?kZVuk okgu pkyd }kjk Vªd ykijokgh o mis{kkiw.kZ 3- D;k okgu pkyd gfjeksgu ds ikl oS/k Mªkbfoax pkyu vuqKfIr Fkh\ 4- D;k iz'uxr okgu chek 'krksZa ds vuq:i ugha pyk;k tk jgk Fkk\ 5- D;k iz'uxr okgu Vªd la[;k&;w0ih084&Vh&0911 ?kVuk dh frfFk ij foi+{kh fn U;w bf.M;k ba';ksjsal dEiuh fy0 }kjk chfer Fkh\ 6- D;k e`rdk nq?kZVuk esa Lo;a ykijokg Fkh\ 7- ;kphx.k vius }kjk okafNr izfrdj izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS] ;fn gka rks fdruk\ 8- D;k vU; dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\^^ 7. The issue Nos. 1, 2 and 6 relate to place, time of incident and negligence of the drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident. The Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence, held that Smt. Sonali Srivastava was not negligent rather the driver of the Truck bearing No. U.P.-84T-0911 was negligent. The Tribunal has also held that on 03.01.2012, Smt. Sonali Srivastava expired due to accident with Truck bearing No. U.P.-84T-0911 at Roshnabad Yadav Crossing, P.S.-Madiyaon, District-Lucknow at about 9:45 A.M. 8. The issue Nos. 3 and 4 relate to valid driving licence of the driver of the Truck namely Sri Harimohan and the fulfillment of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy of the vehicle i.e. Truck. The Tribunal while deciding the issue Nos. 3 and 4 held that the driving licence of the Truck driver namely Sri Harimohan was valid but he failed to follow the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, as he was driving the Truck rashly and negligently. 9. The Tribunal while deciding the issue Nos. 3 and 4 held that the driving licence of the Truck driver namely Sri Harimohan was valid but he failed to follow the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, as he was driving the Truck rashly and negligently. 9. The Tribunal while deciding the issue No. 5 held that the Truck bearing No. U.P.-84T-0911, of which the driver was Sri Harimohan, was insured with New India Insurance Company Ltd., Barpur , District-Farrukhabad. 10. The Issue Nos. 7 and 8 were decided together by the Tribunal. The issue Nos. 7 and 8 relate to award of compensation and any other relief to which the appellants/claimants are entitled. While deciding the issue Nos. 7 and 8, the Tribunal took note of the basic pay i.e. Rs. 5375/- per month of the deceased namely Smt. Sonali Srivastava and accordingly, made the calculation and awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,46,000/- along with the interest @ 7% per annum. 11. In the light of the above said brief facts, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide the judgment and award dated 23.02.2015. 12. During the pendency of the present appeal, the appellants moved an application dated 08.01.2019 along with the affidavit for permission to file additional evidence on record. The additional evidence filed by the appellants through the application is the salary certificate issued by the Block Education Officer, Chinhat, Lucknow and Form-16, a certificate for information of tax deducted at source under Section 203 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the period commencing from 01.04.2009-31.03.2010 and Assessment Year 2010-2011. After moving the application for permission to file additional evidence, this Court after considering the facts of the case, passed the following order on 31.01.2019:- "Heard Sri Sanjay Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants as well as counsel for the New India Insurance Company Ltd. Additional evidence has been filed before this Court by way of application dated 8.1.2019 by counsel for the appellants, who submitted two documents; the first one is salary certificate issued by Khand Shiksha Adhikari, Chinhat, Lucknow wherein it has been verified that Smt. Sonali Srivastava, Assistant Teacher, Primary School Kamlapur, Region Chinhat, District Lucknow was a permanent Teacher, who died on 3.1.2012 and was being paid total salary of Rs. 27,612/- and after other deductions of Rs. 27,612/- and after other deductions of Rs. 1,867/- she was drawing net salary of Rs. 25,745/- per month. The other document annexed with the application is copy of income tax return form 16. Learned counsel for the respondent-company is at liberty to verify these documents at his own end. At the same time, considering the urgency of the case we direct Sri Manish Mishra, learned counsel for District Basic Education Officer, Lucknow, who is present before the Court, to get these two documents verified from the Basic Education Officer, Lucknow and give his verification report. Counsel for the appellants will be required to give a copy of the application to Sri Manish Mishra. The objection filed by the respondent-company to the application for permission to file additional evidence is taken on record. List this case after two weeks showing the name of Sri Manish Mishra as a counsel. " 13. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 31.01.2019, an affidavit was filed by Dr. Amar Kant Singh, District Basic Education Officer, Lucknow and the perusal thereof would show that the salary of the deceased namely Smt. Sonali Srivastava immediately prior to her death was Rs. 25,745/- per mensem. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants for the purposes of enhancement of the amount awarded by the Tribunal submitted that the Tribunal completely ignored the salary in hand of the deceased namely Smt. Sonali Srivastava i.e. Rs. 25,385/- per month and in support thereof, the photocopy of the Passbook of the deceased namely Smt. Sonali Srivastava was filed, wherein the salary of the Month of November, 2011 has been specifically mentioned. 15. On the basis of the entry made in the Passbook, which is paper no. C-14/5 of the lower court record and has also been mentioned in the judgment, under appeal, the counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Tribunal erred in not taking/considering the entry in the Passbook and accordingly, the award so far as it relates to award of compensation on the basis of the basic pay of the deceased namely Smt. Sonali Srivastava i.e. Rs. 5375/-, is liable to the modified and amount awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be enhanced. 16. The learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of the additional documents filed in the appeal and the affidavit of Dr. 5375/-, is liable to the modified and amount awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be enhanced. 16. The learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of the additional documents filed in the appeal and the affidavit of Dr. Amar Kant Singh, District Basic Education Officer, submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be enhanced keeping in view the salary of the deceased at the time of accident. 17. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents-Insurance Company Sri Harpal Singh Chadda submitted that the Tribunal has not erred in granting the compensation. He further submitted that the Tribunal has granted the compensation keeping in view the basic pay of the deceased namely Smt. Sonali Srivastava mentioned in the Identity Card issued by the Basic Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow, according to which, the basic pay of the deceased was Rs. 5375/-. 18. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that before the Tribunal, the appellants/claimants failed to place on record the salary certificate of the deceased and other documents which were required for proving the monthly salary of the deceased namely Smt. Sonali Srivastava and the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation on the basis of the material evidence on record. 19. We have considered the rival submissions of the respective parties and gone through the record including the lower court record carefully. 20. The present appeal is only with regard to the enhancement of compensation and as such, we are only considering the decision on the issue Nos. 7 and 8 in the light of the facts and reasons mentioned hereinabove as well as the documents referred hereinabove. 21. A perusal of the decision on the issue Nos. 7 and 8 shows that the Tribunal only considered the Identity Card of the deceased namely Smt. Sonali Srivastava, which is paper no. C-14/8 of the lower Court record, in which the basic pay of the deceased is Rs. 5,375/- per month. The Tribunal did not consider the paper no. C-14/3 and C-14/5 which are also on record i.e. the photocopies of the Bank Passbook, in which the salary of the deceased namely Smt. Sonali Srivastava is mentioned as Rs. 25,385/- of the month of November, 2011. 22. 5,375/- per month. The Tribunal did not consider the paper no. C-14/3 and C-14/5 which are also on record i.e. the photocopies of the Bank Passbook, in which the salary of the deceased namely Smt. Sonali Srivastava is mentioned as Rs. 25,385/- of the month of November, 2011. 22. The amount mentioned in the Passbook was required to be considered by the Tribunal while awarding the compensation, as it is settled law that the basic pay would not be counted for the purposes of grant of compensation and the amount i.e. the salary in hand has to be taken note of by the Court concerned/Tribunal for granting/awarding the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellants/claimants have also placed on record the salary certificate and the Form-16 i.e. TDS for the assessment year 2010-11, which also reflects that salary in hand of the deceased namely Smt. Sonali Srivastava was much more than that considered by the Tribunal. 23. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the amount awarded by the Tribunal, keeping in view the basic pay/salary of the deceased namely Smt. Sonali Srivastava, is neither proper nor justified. 24. The documents placed by the appellants along with the application for taking additional evidence on record also requires consideration. 25. The application for seeking permission to produce additional evidence in Appellate Court can be allowed in the circumstances enumerated under Order 47 Rule 27 of C.P.C. Mode of taking additional evidence on record is provided under Order 41 Rule 28. 26. In the case of K. Venkataramiah vs. A. Seetharama Reddy & Ors., 1964 (2) SCR 35 , considering the Order 41 Rule 27, the Apex Court observed as under:- "... Apart from this, it is well to remember that the appellate court has the power to allow additional evidence not only if it requires such evidence "to enable it to pronounce judgment" but also for "any other substantial cause". There may well be cases where even though the court finds that it is able to pronounce judgment on the state of the record as it is, and so, it cannot strictly say that it requires additional evidence "to enable it to pronounce judgment," it still considers that in the interest of justice something which remains obscure should be filled up so that it can pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. Such a case will be one for allowing additional evidence "for any other substantial cause" under Rule 27(1)(b) of the Code. " 27. In the case of Sangram Singh vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah, Bhurey Lal Baya, 1955 (2) SCR 1 (at page 8), considering the Order 41 Rule 27, the Apex Court observed as under:- "Now a code of procedure must be regarded as such. It is procedure, something designed to facilitate justice and further its ends: not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties; not a thing designed to trip people up. Too technical a construction of sections that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore be guarded against (provided always that justice is done to both sides) lest the very means designed for the furtherance of justice be used to frustrate it." 28. In the case of Corporation of Madras and another v. M. Parthasarathy and others; (2018) 9 SCC 445 , considering the Order 41 Rule 27, the Apex Court observed as under:- "13. First, it took into consideration the additional piece of evidence while deciding the appeals on merits without affording any opportunity to the appellants herein (who were respondents in the first appeals) to file any rebuttal evidence to counter the additional evidence adduced by the respondents (appellants before the first appellate court). This caused prejudice to the appellants herein because they suffered the adverse order from the appellate court on the basis of additional evidence adduced by the respondents for the first time in appeal against them. (See LAO v. H. Narayanaiah [LAO v. H. Narayanaiah, (1976) 4 SCC 9 ], Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. v. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills [Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. v. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills, (2010) 8 SCC 423 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 392] and Akhilesh Singh v. Lal Babu Singh [Akhilesh Singh v. Lal Babu Singh, (2018) 4 SCC 659 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 131].)" 29. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 30.01.2019 passed by this Court, quoted above, the view expressed by the Apex Court in relation to dealing with the application under Order 41 Rule 27, in the judgments referred hereinabove, and the averments made in the affidavits, referred hereinabove, as well as in the interest of substantial justice, we hereby allow the application for production of additional evidence on record filed by the appellants/claimants. 30. Considering the facts of the case, provisions envisaged in the Order 41 Rule 28 of C.P.C. and observations of the Apex Court in the case of Corporation of Madras (supra), we are of the view that the matter may be remanded back to the Tribunal for decision on the issue Nos. 7 and 8 after taking evidence, as per Law, of the parties to the litigation. 31. While deciding the issue Nos. 3 and 7, the Tribunal/Trial Court would also consider the principles settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another; 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677 (S.C.) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 4 TAC 673 (SC) as well as in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, wherein the Apex Court has settled the relevant issues related to grant/award of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, which includes the proper deduction, multiplier and amount to be awarded towards conventional heads. 32. The aforesaid observation has been made keeping in view the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the issue Nos. 7 and 8 and the operative portion of the judgment and award dated 23.02.2015. 33. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for afresh decision, as per Law and observations made hereinabove, on the issue Nos. 7 and 8. Fresh decision on the issue Nos. 7 and 8 would substitute the findings and conclusion of the award dated 23.02.2015. As far as other findings recorded by the Tribunal are concerned, they remain undisturbed. This has been provided keeping in view the principle of speedy disposal of the case. 34. The aforesaid view of this court finds support from the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 28 of the judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. As far as other findings recorded by the Tribunal are concerned, they remain undisturbed. This has been provided keeping in view the principle of speedy disposal of the case. 34. The aforesaid view of this court finds support from the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 28 of the judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Balakrishnan, (2013) 1 SCC 731 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 771: (2013) 1 SCC (Cri.) 677, the same reads as under:- "28. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we think it apposite to set aside the finding of the High Court and the Tribunal as regards the liability of the insurer and remit the matter to the Tribunal to scrutinise the policy in a proper perspective and, if necessary, by taking additional evidence and if the conclusion is arrived at that the policy in question is a "comprehensive/package policy", the liability would be fastened on the insurer. As far as other findings recorded by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court are concerned, they remain undisturbed." 35. It is provided that for fresh decision on issue Nos. 7 and 8, the learned Court below/Tribunal would provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondents by permitting them to file additional Written Statement and additional evidence in rebuttal to the additional evidence filed by the appellants/claimants before this Court, if they choose. 36. The parties would appear before the Tribunal on 23/September/2019. 37. Office is directed to send the lower court record to the Motor Vehicle Accidents Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Lucknow.