The appellate court can receive additional evidence under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, emphasizing the insurance company's duty to produce relevant documents for fair adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

NYAPATHY VIJAY, J.

1. The present appeal is filed under section 30 of Employees Compensation Act, questioning the order in W.C.No.06 of 2003 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tirupati dated 21.02.2005.

2. The parties are referred to as per their nomenclature before the Commissioner.

3. The facts leading to this appeal are as under:

One P.Vara Prasad was employed as a driver by O.P.No.1 in lorry bearing No.ADC-1859. On 20.02.2002, while the deceased was driving the lorry, collided with KSRTC Bus bearing No.KA 01 F-7167 near Medarimitta on Bangalore Vijayawada road and as a result of the accident, the deceased driver died on the spot. The Medarimitta P.S., registered a case under Section 304-A and section 337 I.P.C., in Crime No.5 of 2002 against the driver of KSRTC Bus. The father of the deceased filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- as the deceased was employed by Opposite Party No.1 on a monthly salary of Rs.4,000/- with batta at Rs.100/- per day. In the claim application, the policy number of the vehicle was specifically mentioned as 051601/31/01/64268.

4. The O.P.No.1 refused to receive notice and was set ex parte on 17.11.2003. The insurance company/O.P.No.2 filed their counter disputing the claim, non-joinder of necessary parties, employment and sought for dismissal of the claim. No specific plea was taken disputing the policy number specifically mentioned in the claim petition.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, the Commissioner framed as many as 7 issues and they read as under:

1. Whether the applicant was a workman as per the provisions of the Act and he died due to personal injuries he received in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

2. What was the age of the deceased at the time of the accident?

3. What were the wages paid to the deceased at the time of the accident?

4. Amount of compensation payable?

5. Whether this Court having jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition or not?

6. Is there any bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties?

7. Who are liable to pay the compensation?

6. The claimant got marked six (6) documents-Exs.A.1 to A.6 and the claimant himself examined as A.W.1 and another individual-S.Gaffoor Saheb as A.W.2. The insurance company neither filed any documentary evidence nor led any oral evidence. The Commissioner dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimant has not filed any proof of ownership of the vehicle by O.P.No.1 nor the insurance policy was filed.

7. In the present appeal, the counsel for the appellant filed insurance policy vide memo No.26419/2024 filed on 12.03.2024. The insurance policy No. 051601/31/01/64268 mentioned in the claim petition tallies with the insurance policy filed along with the memo. The insurance policy mentions the name of O.P.No.1 as the insurer and the vehicle number as ADC-1859. The period of policy was shown as 28.12.2001 to 27.12.2002.

8. A copy of the memo along with the policy was furnished to the counsel for the insurance company and in response and on instructions, it is fairly informed to the Court that there is no dispute to the policy.

9. In view of the filing of the policy, in this appeal, the substantial question of law that arises for consideration is;

"(i) whether the appellate Court in an appeal under Section 30 of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 could receive additional evidence and adjudicate the appeal on the basis of additional evidence?".

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Sharay Sing v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., & others 2003 (10) SCC 664 examined copy of insurance policy produced before that court for the first time. In the above case, though the examination of the insurance policy for the first time was opposed by the contesting respondent, the same was rejected by Hon'ble Supreme Court as the very basis of the claim is based on the insurance policy. This observation makes it clear that this Court is not prec