JUDGMENT : Dipak Misra, J. - These appeals preferred u/s 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') arise from the proceedings initiated under the Act relating to the same accident. Two of the claimants-respondents were stated to be coolies and the other was a helper of the vehicle in question. Since the facts and law involved in all the cases are similar and the appeals were heard together and one set of argument was canvassed by the learned counsel, the same are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. A brief reference to the facts would suffice. The claimants- respondents filed applications for grant of compensation as they had sustained injuries in an accident arising out of and in course of their employment before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bhubaneswar forming the subject-matter of W.C. Case Nos.70, 71, and 72 of 1993. The employer appearing before the Commissioner admitted the employment, accidental injuries and wage of the claimants and pleaded that the vehicle having been validly insured with the National Insurance Company Limited, the present appellant-insurer was liable to indemnify. The insurance company resisted the claim of the claimants and the denials were of general in nature. Taking into consideration the materials on record the Commissioner under the Act awarded compensation of Rs. 40,000.00, 34,409.00 and 41,325.80 paise respectively. Against the aforesaid awards three Misc. Appeals were preferred forming the subject-matter of Misc. Appeal Nos. 561, 562, and 563 of 1994. In course of hearing of the appeals it was contended by the insurer-appellant that on verification they had come to know that no driving licence had in fact been issued or renewed in favour of the driver of the vehicle. This contention was canvassed on the basis of a verification report of the licencing authority. On consideration of the stand of the company this Court remanded the matters directing the Commissioner to dispose of the cases after affording opportunities of hearing to the parties. After remand the Commissioner has re-affirmed his awards passed earlier on. Hence, these appeals are at the instance of the insurer-appellant. 3. Mr. B.P. Das, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Commissioner has failed to comply with the order of remand as the insurer has not granted adequate opportunity to prove that the vehicle in question was not driven by an authorised person. Hence, these appeals are at the instance of the insurer-appellant. 3. Mr. B.P. Das, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Commissioner has failed to comply with the order of remand as the insurer has not granted adequate opportunity to prove that the vehicle in question was not driven by an authorised person. Non-granting of sufficient opportunity, as submitted by Mr. Das, vitiates the orders passed by the Commissioner. Mr. Das on behalf of the applicant has filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC for taking into consideration the documents annexed to the said application as Annexures-1 and 2. Annexure-1 is the correspondence made by the advocate of the Company from Ranchi with the Divisional Manager of the appellant- Company indicating that the District Transport Officer, Ranchi had passed orders for issuance of particulars of driving licence No. 26691. An-nexure-2 is the particulars of the said licence which shows that the aforesaid licence has been granted in the name of one Abdul Manan. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the insurer that Annexure-2 could not be produced before the Commissioner and this would show that the licence was not granted in favour of another Sahu, the driver of the vehicle. 4. Controverting the submission of Mr. Das, Mr. L.M. Nanda, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 in each of the appeals has contended that adequate opportunity had been granted by the Commissioner but no effective steps were taken by the company. The affected persons have suffered enough and the insurance company has been adopting dilatory methods to frustrate the claim of the claimants. Mr. Nanda has further submitted that the finding of the Commissioner is in consonance with the direction of this Court and the award being in terms of the order of remand is not vulnerable. It has been vehemently urged by him that the onus cast on the insurance company to dispute the correctness of the driving licence has not been discharged and therefore there is no impropriety in the awards passed by the Commissioner. Resisting the application under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC it is submitted that the said application is absolutely belated and is an attempt to get the appeal decided in a particular manner and is not essentially for the just and satisfactory adjudication of the controversy. That apart, the submission of Mr. Resisting the application under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC it is submitted that the said application is absolutely belated and is an attempt to get the appeal decided in a particular manner and is not essentially for the just and satisfactory adjudication of the controversy. That apart, the submission of Mr. Nanda is that the finding of the Commissioner with regard to renewal of licence is absolutely unsusceptible, and therefore, the stand of the insurer which relates to the original licence, even if accepted, would not make any difference and therefore, there is no illegality in the awards passed by the Commissioner and further scrutiny of licence would not improve the matter. 5. The rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties require careful consideration. 6. To appreciate the scope and ambit of these appeals it is profitable to re-produce the relevant paragraphs of the earlier judgment whereby the matter was remanded. "3. The thrust of the submissions of Shri B.P. Das, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that the Commissioner has not considered the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence on the date of the accident and therefore, no liability could be saddled on the Insurance Company. He produced a copy of the certificate purportedly granted by the R.T.O., Cut-tack showing that no driving licence bearing D.L. No. 115/84-85 has either been issued or renewed in favour of Sridhar Sahu. In reply to the point Shri L.M. Nanda submitted that his instruction is that such a licence was issued in favour of the person concerned. 4. Considering the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties and the relevance of the point for determination of the liability of the Insurance Company, I am of the view that it will be apt and proper to remit the cases to the Commissioner for determination of the question after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties". The aforesaid paragraphs clearly indicate that the order of remand was the result of the production of the copy of the certificate granted by the R.T.O., Cuttack. The aforesaid paragraphs clearly indicate that the order of remand was the result of the production of the copy of the certificate granted by the R.T.O., Cuttack. The contention of the insurer on the previous occasion was that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence on the date of the accident and keeping in view the certificate granted by the competent authority this Court thought it apt to remand the matter for re-consideration. After remand, as it appears the Commissioner addressed himself with regard to the validity of the licence of the driver. On behalf of the claimants the driving licence which was issued by the competent authority was produced and has been marked as Ext. 16. To decide the controversy the Commissioner thought it appropriate to inspect and ver-ify the relevant documents from the office of the R.T.O., Cuttack. The counsel for the parties accompanied him and the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Cuttack produced the register indicating the grant of the driving licence in favour of the driver. The Commissioner found that the certified copy of Ext. 16 tallied with the number of the driving licence as mentioned in the register maintained by the R.T.O. Cuttack. Ext. 16 as observed is the renewed licence by the R.T.O. basing on the original driving licence No. 26691 dated February 28, 1969 issued by the ' District Transport Officer, Ranchi. After the inspection had taken place on behalf of the insurance company a petition was filed for grant of time to produce the certified copy of the original driving licence No. 26691 dated February 28, 1969. The Commissioner adjourned the matter on several occasions at their instance but no fruitful result ensued. That apart, the Commissioner also recorded a finding that on the date of the accident, the licence having been renewed Was valid in the eye of law. On perusal of the reasoning of the Commissioner I do not find any justification to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company that further opportunity should have been granted to them to satisfy the Commissioner that the driver of the vehicle did not have the valid licence as the original was based on a fake one. There is no dispute that the licence in question has been renewed by the competent authority at Cuttack. There is no dispute that the licence in question has been renewed by the competent authority at Cuttack. On the date of the accident the driver was the holder of a licence granted by the authority at Cuttack. The moot question that arises for consideration is whether the renewed licence would become invalid because of a fake licence which had been the basis or the foundation for such renewal. The whole attempt of the insurer is, as it appears from the application under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC, that it has been brought to their knowledge that the earlier licence was not in the name of Sridhar Sahu, the driver of the concerned vehicle. It was incumbent upon the insurance company to establish that the driver did not have a valid driving licence on the date of the accident. Mere denial of valid licence would not suffice. It is obligatory on the part of the insurance company to substantiate such a plea. Non-production of the driving licence does not automatically give rise to a presumption that the vehicle is being driven by an unqualified driver. The onus being heavy, the insurance company should have taken appropriate steps from the very beginning to discharge the same. In this regard reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Narcinva V. Kamat and Anr. v. Alfredo Antoni Doe Martins and Ors., reported in 1985 ACJ 397 where their lordships held as follows: "The last question is whether he had a valid driving licence. The High Court has not recorded a clear cut finding on this point. The finding of the Tribunal is more evasive than the one by the High Court. Mr. Sharma did not dispute that the second appellant had a driving licence. His grievance is that he having failed to produce the same when called upon to do so in the cros- examination, an adverse inference be drawn against him that he did not have a valid licence to drive a pick-up van. The submission fails to carry conviction with us. The burden to prove that there was breach of the contract or insurance was squarely placed on the shoulders of the insurance company. It could not be said to have been discharged by it by a mere question in cross- examination. The submission fails to carry conviction with us. The burden to prove that there was breach of the contract or insurance was squarely placed on the shoulders of the insurance company. It could not be said to have been discharged by it by a mere question in cross- examination. The second appellant was under no obligation to furnish evidence so as to enable the insurance company to wriggle out of its liability under the contract of insurance. Further the R.T.A. which issues the driving licence keeps a record of the licences issued and renewed by it. The insurance company could have got the evidence produced to substantiate his allegation. Applying the test who would fail if no evidence is led, the obvious answer is the insurance company." In a recent decision the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case or The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Paro and Others, have expressed as follows: ".... It is for the insurance company to prove the breach of the conditions, the onus of proving the same lies on the insurance company and it cannot be inferred that the vehicle was not being driven by the duly licensed driver. The onus of proving the same continues on the company, though the burden of proof may shift in the facts and circumstances of each case. No law in general terms can be laid down that non-production of the driving licence or non-production of any evidence of having a valid driving licence would automatically result in a presumption of the vehicle being driven by an unqualified driver." The purpose of referring to these decisions are that the insurance company in the instant case has really not shown any sanguine effort. As it has had produced the certificate of verification before this Court that there was no valid licence at the time of the accident, they could have thoroughly investigated into the matter and produced the relevant materials before the Commissioner within the time stipulated by this Court. Investigation or inquiry on instalments in these matter is not to be appreciated or encouraged. The onus being known the efforts should have been made from the time of initial contest. This Court remanded the matter after perusal of the certificate of verification purported to be granted by the R.T.O., Cuttack. The opportunity granted by this Court has not been utilised in a proper manner. The onus being known the efforts should have been made from the time of initial contest. This Court remanded the matter after perusal of the certificate of verification purported to be granted by the R.T.O., Cuttack. The opportunity granted by this Court has not been utilised in a proper manner. Indulgence cannot be shown to a litigant at the cost of other. The claimants who had suffered the injuries are the victims of an unfortunate circumstance. There were no occasions on their part to know whether the driver was having a valid renewed licence or not this does not necessarily mean that unauthorised and an unqualified driver can be permitted to ply a vehicle in breach of condition of the policy of the insurance. But this should not be used as a weapon to cripple the claim of the claimants for an indefinite period. True it is, the plea of insurer is a good defence in law but it has to be proved within a reasonable period. The injured cannot be asked to wait for an indefinite period, for the insurance company has to lift the veil of a licence to exonerate itself from the liability. One cannot forget that a helpless victim, an unfortunate employee and an afflicted and an agonised person is making effort to fight the City Halls. In the instant case, the Commissioner after remand on inspection of the records of the competent authority in presence of the counsel was satisfied and he did not find any discrepancy in the certified copy of the licence and the register. The application which has been filed under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC is to show that the award can be different if the original licence is considered. Rendering of a decision in a particular manner cannot be a criterion to entertain an application under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC. In this regard it is worthwhile to refer to the case of Charan Misra and Another Vs. Labanya Debi, wherein it was observed as follows: "It is well-settled that the provision of Order 41, Rule 27, CPC are not intended to enable the appellate Court to dispose of the appeal in a particular way. In this regard it is worthwhile to refer to the case of Charan Misra and Another Vs. Labanya Debi, wherein it was observed as follows: "It is well-settled that the provision of Order 41, Rule 27, CPC are not intended to enable the appellate Court to dispose of the appeal in a particular way. In other words, when the appellate Court would be able to pronounce the judgment without taking any additional evidence, it would not accept additional evidence just to dispose of an appeal in the way in which it wants to." In view of the ratio of the aforesaid decision it can be safely concluded that the prayer for additional evidence is an attempt for disposal of appeal in a particular manner. That being not the test of Order 41, Rule 27, CPC. I am not inclined to entertain the same. 7. While not entertaining the prayer for additional evidence at the instance of the appellant I am inclined to address myself whether the additional evidence, even if brought on record, would make any difference and call for a different result. The purpose of bringing the additional evidence in the instant case is to establish that the renewal of licence granted by the R.T.O., Cuttack is on the basis of a licence granted by the competent authority at Ranchi. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as the foundation is false and non-existent, the superstructure standing thereon cannot be deemed to be real, and therefore, renewal of licence granted by the authority at Cuttack cannot be regarded as valid in the eye of law. In this regard it is profitable to refer to a decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sucha Singh and Others, wherein their Lordships relying on Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have held as follows: "We agree with the final conclusion arrived at by the Motor " Accidents Claims Tribunal that the insurance company would be liable to pay the compensation if the licence had been renewed, though originally it was a faked licence. XX XX XX If a licence is renewed, it gets validity in view of provisions of Section 15 of the Act. XX XX XX If a licence is renewed, it gets validity in view of provisions of Section 15 of the Act. The insurance company would be liable to reimburse the insured if accident was caused by the driver and employee of the insured, possessing a licence which was duly renewed". I respectfully concur with the aforesaid view. It is appropriate to state here that in the case at hand the driver was not an unauthorised or un-qualified person as on the date of accident he was in possession of a licence which was renewed by the competent authority. It is worthwhile to mention here that this Court had remanded the case because of the certificate which indicated that no driving licence was either issued or renewed in favour of the driver. Once the renewal has been proved, I am of the considered view that the liability of the insurance company cannot cease and the insurer cannot be lawfully ex-onerated. 8. In view of the preceding analysis the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant fail and the appeals are dismissed being devoid of merit. However, there would be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed