JUDGMENT P. D. Desai, C. J.—The accident giving rise to the claim petition out of which this appeal arises occurred on January 10, 1983, at about 5.15 p. m., near the office of the District Education Officer, Una, which is situate on the State Highway leading from Una to Nangal, The victim of the accident, a boy aged about 5 years, was knocked down by a motor-truck bearing registration No. DHL 3137. The vehicle is owned by the first appellant and, at the material time, it was being driven by the second appellant. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the second respondent and awarded compensation to the first and second respondents (original claimants) in the total sum of Rs. 23, 000 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the institution of the claim petition till the date of payment/deposit, if made within a period of two months ; otherwise, at the rate of 12% per annum till the date of payment/ deposit/realisation. The liability to satisfy the award was fastened on the appellants and the third respondent (Insurance Company) was absolved from such liability since the appellants failed to produce any evidence before the Tribunal to show that the vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by the said respondent. Hence the present appeal. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellants fairly stated that he does not challenge the finding on the issue of negligence nor the amount of com pensation awarded by the Tribunal. The only ground urged in support of the appeal was that the Tribunal had erred in absolving the third respondent from the liability to satisfy the award. The sole question which, therefore, falls for determination is whether the decision of the Tribunal in so far as it absolves the third respondent from the liability to satisfy the impugned award is correct. 3. The sole question which, therefore, falls for determination is whether the decision of the Tribunal in so far as it absolves the third respondent from the liability to satisfy the impugned award is correct. 3. The Tribunal, in para 2 of its award, has observed as follows : "The Insurer of the vehicle pleaded ignorance as to the mishap and further pleaded that full particulars of the insurance coverage of the vehicle be furnished so that requisite pleadings are filed in the court, Respondents No. 1 and 2 were given various adjournment to furnish the particulars of the insurance coverage to the insurer, the New India Insurance Company Ltd. (Sic). They failed to do so despite the order of the court and resultantly, their defence was struck out." It is apparent that the New India Insurance Company Ltd. has been wrongly mentioned in the extracted portion as the insurer since the National Insurance Company Ltd. (third respondent) was arraigned as party-opponent before the Tribunal in the capacity of the insurer of the vehicle. 4. The present appeal was instituted on March 3, 1986. On the same day, the appellants instituted an application, Civil Misc. Petition No. 621 of 1986, under Order 41, Rule V of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying that they may be permitted to place on record a copy of the insurance policy duly authenticated by the Insurance Company (third respondent) in respect of the vehicle involved in the accident. The application contains an averment to the effect that the original insurance policy was not available with the appellants during the pendency of the claim petition before the Tribunal since it was misplaced and that the duly authenticated copy thereof procured from the third respondent be allowed to be brought on record of the case in the interest of justice. Notice pending admission was ordered to issue on the appeal on May 1, 1986, Simultaneously, notice was also ordered to issue on Civil Misc. Petition No. 621 of 1986 to show cause why the copy of the insurance policy should not be taken on record as and by way of additional evidence. When the appeal reached preliminary hearing on July 14, 1986, the court passed the following order: "Shri A. K. Goel, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent, requests for an adjournment in order to ascertain whether the insurance policy annexed to Civil Misc. When the appeal reached preliminary hearing on July 14, 1986, the court passed the following order: "Shri A. K. Goel, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent, requests for an adjournment in order to ascertain whether the insurance policy annexed to Civil Misc. Petition No. 621 of 1986, which is sought to be brought on record of the case, covers the owner of the vehicle with regard to the liability arising out of the accident in question. Request granted. Adjourned to July 25, 1986. "The Court would like to observe that, prima facie, the liability appears to be covered. It is rather surprising that the third respondent, which is a nationalised Insurance Company and, therefore, an organ of the State, has allowed the Tribunal to reach the conclusion that the Insurance Company was not liable since the Insurance Policy was not brought on the record of the case. Since the Insurance Company was a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal and must be presumed to be in possession of all the material facts relating to the insurance cover, it was its duty to have placed the relevant facts before the Tribunal and to have owned up the liability in case the insured was covered by the policy. It does not behave an agency or organ of the State to keep back the material facts in the course of a judicial proceeding in which the Tribunal enforces the provisions of a statute enacted by the Parliament as a measure of socio-econmic justice and in conformity with the Directive Principles of State Policy. The adoption of such a stance amounts to suppression veri and the Insurance Company, which is an instrumentality of the State, is not expected to have recourse to such a practice. These observations will be borne in mind by the Insurance Company for its future guidance. If the insured was, in fact, covered by the policy in respect of the claim which has given rise to this proceeding, the Insurance Company will deposit the awarded amount in the Registry of this Court within the aforesaid time-limit. Dasti copy to be supplied within twenty-four hours." On July 25, 1986, the Court passed the following further order : "Mr. A. K. Goel states that the awarded amount together with interest and costs has been deposited in the Registry of this Court by means of a cheque today. Admit. Dasti copy to be supplied within twenty-four hours." On July 25, 1986, the Court passed the following further order : "Mr. A. K. Goel states that the awarded amount together with interest and costs has been deposited in the Registry of this Court by means of a cheque today. Admit. To be listed at the top of the Admission Board on August 1, 1986." 5. Be it stated that no return has been filed opposing the grant of Civil Misc. Petition No. 621 of 1986. It would be legitimate to presume, therefore, that the application for taking on record the copy of the insurance policy as additional evidence is not being opposed by the third respondent. True it is that the appellants failed to produce the original insurance policy during the course of the trial of the claim petition despite opportunities having been afforded to them. Still, however there is no reason why the duly authenticated copy of the insurance policy should not be allowed to be produced by way of additional evidence at the appellate stage under the circumstances aforementioned. Such additional evidence is required by this Court in order to enable it to pronounce the judgment and, in any event, for the substantial cause of doing justice to the parties. The first appellant, who had the benefit of the coverage of the insurance policy, and the second appellant alone have been made responsible to satisfy the award, whereas, in fact, the vehicle in question had the insurance coverage and the third respondent was also, therefore, liable in law to satisfy the award. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that this is a fit and proper case in which the power under Order 41, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure be exercised to bring the additional evidence on record. The copy of the insurance policy is, therefore, taken on the record of the case and is admitted in evidence. 6. The copy of the insurance policy which is accordingly brought on record shows that the vehicle (DHL 3137) was insured with the third respondent for the period from August 16, 1982 to August 12, 1983. The accident giving rise to the claim petition occurred during the period of insurance. 6. The copy of the insurance policy which is accordingly brought on record shows that the vehicle (DHL 3137) was insured with the third respondent for the period from August 16, 1982 to August 12, 1983. The accident giving rise to the claim petition occurred during the period of insurance. There is no manner of doubt, therefore, that the insurance coverage was available at the material time and that the third respondent is also liable to satisfy the award. Indeed, in light of the order made on July 14, 1986 and in view of the fact that pursuant thereto the awarded amount together with interest and costs was deposited in the Registry of this Court, the Court would be justified in proceeding on the legitimate assumption that it is even conceded that the vehicle in question was covered, at the material time, by an insurance policy issued by the third respondent and that the third respondent does not dispute its liability to satisfy the award. The award of the Tribunal, in so far as it absolves the third respondent from the liability to satisfy the award, is, therefore, required to be guashed and set aside. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds and it is allowed to the extent that the third respondent is also held liable to satisfy the impugned award together with the appellants. The third respondent has already deposited certain amount as recorded in the order, dated July 25, 1986. If any further amount still requires to be deposited pursuant to this decision, the same shall be deposited by the third respondent within a period of fifteen days from today. The case be then listed before the Registrar for the settlement of the usual draft order for the investment of the said amount. Order accordingly. 8. The Bank guarantee furnished by the first appellant stands discharged, Appeal allowed.