JUDGMENT Mrs. Daya Chaudhary, J.:- The present appeal has been filed by the appellant, who is owner of the offending bus, to challenge the award passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation Act, Circle Fatehabad, vide which, claim filed by the claimant has been allowed and liability has been fastened upon the appellant. Along with the appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for production of insurance policy for additional evidence for the period from 18.1.2009 to 17.1.2010 has also been filed. 2. Notice of motion was issued in the appeal on 16.3.2012. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the offending bus was insured with the Insurance Company on the date of accident vide insurance policy Annexure A-1 but inadvertently it could not be produced by the counsel before the Commissioner during trial. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that awarded amount has already been deposited before the Commissioner. Learned counsel also submits that in absence of the policy, liability has been fastened upon the appellant, who is owner of the offending vehicle. 3. On 18.5.2012, the case was adjourned and counsel for Insurance Company-respondent No.2 was directed to verify as to whether on the date of accident i.e. 20.1.2009 the offending vehicle was insured or not. It has been brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company-respondent No.2 that the offending vehicle was insured on the date of accident. He has also not disputed the insurance policy which has been placed on record along with application for additional evidence. It has also been admitted by the counsel for the appellant as well as by the counsel for respondent No.2 that the amount has already been deposited with the Commissioner and same has not been disbursed to the claimant so far. This fact has also been affirmed by learned counsel for the claimant-respondent No.1. 4. As per finding recorded by the learned commissioner, the accident has been proved on record and the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by the driver. In the accident, the claimant received serious multiple grievous injuries and he became permanent disabled. 4. As per finding recorded by the learned commissioner, the accident has been proved on record and the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by the driver. In the accident, the claimant received serious multiple grievous injuries and he became permanent disabled. The claim petition has been allowed by learned Commissioner but liability has been fastened upon the present appellant because the insurance could not be proved as the policy on record was of the year 2008-2009, whereas, the vehicle was insured in the subsequent year i.e. 2009-2010 also. 5. Now the dispute is whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount of compensation or the owner of the bus. From the policy, which has been placed on record, the present appellant, who is owner of the bus, cannot be held liable but in he absence of insurance policy, which was not before learned Commissioner, the liability has been fastened upon the appellant. Accordingly, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for production of insurance policy for the period 2009-2010 is allowed. The appeal is remanded to the learned Commissioner to decide the claim petition by considering the policy for the year 2009-2010 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner on 12.7.2013. ---------0.B.S.0------------