G. YETHIRAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred by the New India Assurance Company limited, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen s compensation, Hyderabad-1, dated 16-7-1996 in W. C. No. 11 of 1994 making the appellant jointly and severally liable for the compensation of Rs. 88,868/-in favour of the respondents. ( 2 ) THE accident occurred while the deceased was on duty as a cleaner in the school bus and was allowing the school children to get down from the bus at kukatpally bus stop, the driver of the bus drove the vehicle fast, without observing the deceased getting into the bus and due to which he fell down and came under the wheels of the bus and sustained severe multiple fracture and crush injuries on the legs and, while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries. The Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation, while awarding compensation, held that the appellant and the owner of the bus are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. The appellant- insurance Company being aggrieved by the liability fixed by the Commissioner for workmen s Compensation, preferred this appeal challenging its validity and legality. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation did not consider the issue regarding the liability of the Insurance Company, though a plea was taken in the counter filed by the Insurance company that there was no valid insurance coverage to the vehicle in question at the time of accident. As seen from Ex. B. l-copy of the insurance policy, it is clear that there was insurance coverage to the bus from 5. 30 p. m. of 10-12-1993 to 9-12-1994. The accident occurred on 10-12-1993 at about 4. 00 p. m. i. e. , about one and half hours prior to the insurance policy coming into force. The learned Counsel for the appellant, therefore, submits that since there was no valid insurance coverage to the vehicle at 4. 00 p. m. on the date of accident, the insurance Company cannot be made liable either jointly or severally to compensate the claimants. Therefore, the order of the commissioner for Workmen s Compensation has to be set aside to the extent of the liability of the appellant. 00 p. m. on the date of accident, the insurance Company cannot be made liable either jointly or severally to compensate the claimants. Therefore, the order of the commissioner for Workmen s Compensation has to be set aside to the extent of the liability of the appellant. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 7 submitted that since the appellant did not take any plea about the validity of the insurance policy at the time of accident, the Insurance Company now cannot be allowed to raise the pleas of validity of the insurance policy and therefore, the order of the Commissioner for workmen s Compensation has to be confirmed without any disturbance. The learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 7 drew the attention of this Court to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Vasantha viswanathan v. V. K. Elayalwar, 2001 (8) scc 133 , wherein the Hon ble Supreme court while considering the scope of section 109 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, held that whenever there is mixed question of fact and law and when no issue was framed or evidence adduced in the trial Court in respect of such question of fact and law, new plea raised cannot be permitted under law. The above preposition was laid down by the Supreme Court in a title suit and the said principle is not applicable to the facts of the present case. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents also cited a decision of this court in New India Assurance Company limited v. Pamula Bala Prabhavathamma and others, 1990 ACJ 547, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court held that a policy, which was not produced before the Tribunal on the pretext that there was correspondence between its branches, cannot be allowed to be produced in the appeal as additional evidence. The principle laid down in the said case also is not applicable to the facts of this case. In this case Ex. B. l policy was marked by the respondents during the enquiry and it was made part of the record of the lower Court. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that the plea regarding the coverage of insurance policy at the time of accident cannot be accepted, does not hold good. In this case Ex. B. l policy was marked by the respondents during the enquiry and it was made part of the record of the lower Court. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that the plea regarding the coverage of insurance policy at the time of accident cannot be accepted, does not hold good. When there is express proof that there was no insurance coverage at the time of accident, the liability cannot be fastened to the Insurance Company on some vague ground making the Insurance Company liable without any contractual obligation. ( 6 ) AFTER going through the record, i find sufficient force in the grounds of appeal. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The award of the Tribunal to the extent of the liability of the appellant is set aside, but under the circumstances, without costs. The award of the Tribunal, in all other respects, holds good.