MC 1062/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. P. Bhattacharje e, learned counsel for the respondents. The applicant/Insurance Company, by the present application is praying for allow ing it to adduce additional evidence relating to the monthly income of the decea sed contending inter alia that though the investigator appointed by them submitt ed his report on 31st March, 2005 accompanied by a certificate issued by the Gen eral Manager of Frontier Publication Private Limited, Guwahati certifying that t he deceased monthly remuneration was Rs.3,500/-, including all allowances, the s aid document could not be produced before the learned Tribunal due to inadverten ce of the concerned staff of the Senior Divisional Manager, NIC, Division-III, M aligaon, Guwahati. According to the applicant, the annual income of the decease d was taken as Rs.51,000/- on the basis of the certificate of the President of t he Gaon Panchayat, which was proved as Exhibit-4. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court, under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is permissible on the following contingencies:- (i) if the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to ad mit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (ii) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwi thstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowl edge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at th e time when the decree appealed against was passed, or (iii) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause. The learned Tribunal after giving opportunities to both the parties to adduce ev idence, has passed the award by accepting the Exhibit-4 certificate issued by th e President of the Gaon Panchayat certifying the annual income of the deceased a s Rs.51,000/-. Though the applicant had the aforesaid salary certificate, which they want to introduce by adducing additional evidence, way back on 31st March, 2005, they did not bother to produce the same till the award was passed by the learned Tribunal on 14th June, 2007. That apart, the claimant was cross-examine d by the applicant/Insurance Company and not even a suggestion was put relating to the income from the salary as sought to be projected now by the applicant. In view of the above, I am of the view that the present application has no merit and hence the applicant cannot be allowed to adduce additional evidence. The application, therefore, stands rejected.