J. G. CHITRE, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant P. P. L. Factory, Raukhedi, Tab. Sanwer, District indore (hereinafter referred to as P. P. L. Factory for convenience) is hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the award passed by Commissioner, workmen's Compensation, in Case No. 65/wc-NCF/93 dated 5. 12. 1997, whereby the appellant has been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 47,142 with penalty of Rs. 23,571 to the respondent with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum along with the cost of litigation Rs. 200. ( 2 ) ON 12. 3. 92 at about 3. 30 p. m. , there was ammonia gas leakage in P. P. L. Factory. The respondent alleged in the claim petition that he was working in the said factory at that time as workman employed by P. P. L. Factory. He alleged that on account of said leakage of ammonia gas his eyes and lungs were damaged with the result that he became blind by left eye and he was unable to see the things properly by right eye. According to the case of the respondent, after the said accident in the factory he was taken to Geeta Bhawan hospital by the present appellant's officers and he was medically treated there. The respondent has alleged that he was getting wages to the tune of Rs. 850 per month and at the time of said accident his age was 22 years. ( 3 ) THE appellant has denied the incident of such accident and submitted that respondent has not suffered any damage to his eyes as mentioned by him. Appellant has denied any such damage to the respondent's lungs also. The appellant averred that respondent was admitted by the officers of the P. P. L. Factory, immediately in geeta Bhavan Hospital where medical treatment was given to him and for that the appellant spent Rs. 6,900. It was averred by the appellant that in the said hospital an operation was performed on the respondent in context with cataract and thereafter, he was taken to Dr. Vasundhara Kalewa and Dr. R. P. Dhanda on 7. 7. 92. He denied that eyes of respondent were damaged on account of such leakage of ammonia gas. It averred that respondent used to get Rs. 775 per month as wages. It is also averred that the respondent has received Rs. 7,956 between 2. 4. Vasundhara Kalewa and Dr. R. P. Dhanda on 7. 7. 92. He denied that eyes of respondent were damaged on account of such leakage of ammonia gas. It averred that respondent used to get Rs. 775 per month as wages. It is also averred that the respondent has received Rs. 7,956 between 2. 4. 1992 and 2. 6. 1992. ( 4 ) THE learned Commissioner after appreciating the evidence on record passed the award which is under challenge in this appeal. ( 5 ) MR. Kutumble, counsel appearing for the appellant submitted an application for taking the insurance policy on record as the additional evidence at this stage. That application is marked as LA. No. 3836 of 1998. In this interlocutory application, the appellant submitted that the insurance policy bearing No. NFB 525/30/72-91/2/ dt/2070i, bearing further the policy No. 190204/4111/09/405/5191, was in existence at the time of hearing of claim in question. However, the said policy could not be produced as it was tagged with some other file. It has been averred by the appellant that now the said policy has been found and, therefore, it be admitted on record as the additional evidence and a notice be issued to the insurance company in that context by impleading it as a necessary party in the present matter. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent justified the impugned award as correct, proper and legal and submitted that now at this stage, the insurance company be not impleaded as a party and the compensation which has been awarded to the respondent should not be delayed. He submitted that the present appeal be dismissed. ( 7 ) PROVISIONS of Order XLI, rule 27 of which Mr. Kutumble is seeking support provide that:" (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the appellate court. He submitted that the present appeal be dismissed. ( 7 ) PROVISIONS of Order XLI, rule 27 of which Mr. Kutumble is seeking support provide that:" (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the appellate court. But if, (a) the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or (b) 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 appellate court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. (2) Whenever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an appellate court, the court shall record the reason for its admission. " ( 8 ) THUS, in the present matter, it is not the case that such policy was produced before the learned Commissioner, in the claim matter and the said court refused to admit it. If that was so, then the burden lies on the shoulders of the appellant to establish that it exercised due diligence and in spite of the exercise of due diligence, it could not get the said policy enabling it to produce it at the time of hearing of the said claim petition. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that in written statement itself the appellant has made a reference to the said insurance policy. The appellant is a commercial concern and, therefore, it must be maintaining the insurance policies in proper way because the appellant factory must have been required to have insurance of its property on different aspects. Being a commercial concern, it is bound to have a good system of filing and preservation of important documents because without that, it cannot transact the business to its benefit. Therefore, the appellant cannot bring its case under the provisions of sub-rule (1) (aa ). Leaving these two clauses, what remains is the need of the court to have it as an additional evidence for pronouncing the judgment. Therefore, the appellant cannot bring its case under the provisions of sub-rule (1) (aa ). Leaving these two clauses, what remains is the need of the court to have it as an additional evidence for pronouncing the judgment. At this juncture, the sentence by which rule 27 has started, cannot be ignored. It has put a prohibition on the parties in an appeal making it clear that they shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the appellate court. When there is such ban right at the initial stage of rule 27, the party seeking to produce oral or documentary evidence as additional evidence at appellate stage, has to make out a good case for admission of such evidence as additional evidence. Otherwise, that should be the need of the court for pronouncing the judgment. ( 9 ) IN the present matter, I do not find any need of that insurance policy on the record as an additional evidence for pronouncing the judgment for the reasons stated as under: (a) The respondent has examined himself and he has been cross-examined also. The appellant did not examine any witness in support of its case, though a long written statement has been submitted on behalf of the appellant. Besides that, the respondent has been cross-examined by the counsel appearing for the appellant and the said counsel had taken objection for production of Exh. P-1, the medical certificate which has been produced by the respondent. This act on the part of the counsel for the appellant and the cross-examination of the respondent shows that the claim was well contested. Respondent's witness dr. Anurag Shrivastava has also been cross-examined at length. It also means that nothing was left in that context at the time of hearing of the said compensation petition. The evidence of the respondent has been well corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Anurag Shrivastava, who has categorically stated in his evidence that on account of some injury to the left eye of the respondent, he became that way blind. His evidence also shows that the vision of right eye was also reduced. He also stated further in his evidence that on account of leakage of ammonia gas, the pupils of eyes of the respondent were injured and on account of that, he had cataract. Evidence of Dr. Shrivastava has not been shattered in the cross-examination. His evidence also shows that the vision of right eye was also reduced. He also stated further in his evidence that on account of leakage of ammonia gas, the pupils of eyes of the respondent were injured and on account of that, he had cataract. Evidence of Dr. Shrivastava has not been shattered in the cross-examination. The submissions made by Mr. Kutumble vehemently in respect of medical evidence are also not acceptable in view of the categorical evidence of Dr. Shrivastava. Thus, the evidence of respondent and Dr. Shrivastava proved that on account of ammonia gas which leaked from the apparatus kept inside the factory belonging to the appellant, when respondent was working in it at the relevant time, he became blind by left eye and lost the substantial vision of the right eye also. The young age of the respondent has also not been disproved. The learned Commissioner has rightly discarded the defence of the appellant and has rightly awarded the compensation to the respondent. (b) The findings recorded by the learned Commissioner are consistent with the evidence on record and the award is correct, proper and legal. ( 10 ) WHEN the award passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is correct, proper and legal, the payment of such compensation cannot be deferred and the workman cannot be deprived of it on account of laziness, negligence and default on the part of his employer, when such employer did not produce the document, the existence of which was in his knowledge at the time of filing the written statement. Apart from that, one who commits default cannot be permitted to deprive the workman of the fruit of labour who has been injured by the accident during the course of employment. The beneficial spirit behind the Workmen's Compensation Act cannot be negated by permitting the employers to play delaying tactics. If at all the insurance company is impleaded as a necessary party at this stage, the hearing would be delayed because it would be seeking the opportunity of being heard in this matter and there would be delay in disposal of this appeal. If at all the appellant finds it proper, it may seek appropriate relief against the insurance company by legal process permissible under the law. In any way, the poor workman cannot be deprived of the compensation to which he happens to be entitled to receive. If at all the appellant finds it proper, it may seek appropriate relief against the insurance company by legal process permissible under the law. In any way, the poor workman cannot be deprived of the compensation to which he happens to be entitled to receive. Thus, the appeal stands dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. .