JUDGMENT : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. Heard Mr. S.S Sharma, learned senior counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. 2. A claim was made by the respondent claimants before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation at Golaghat claiming that on 20.06.2008 at about 7.30 p.m., the deceased Jiban Bora @ Pordesi was on duty as a handyman of the Tata Ace Pick-Up vehicle bearing registration No.AS-03/F-1374 and while the said vehicle was going from Golaghat town towards Badulipara through the Dhodar Ali and when it reached Halmira under Golaghat Police Station, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, the handyman fell down on the pucca portion of the road and sustained injuries on his person. He was taken to the K.K Civil Hospital, Golaghat, where he succumbed to his injuries after a short time. Consequent thereof, Golaghat PS Case No.225/2008 under Sections 279/304(A) IPC was registered. 3. Before the Workmen Commissioner, the claimant Binu Bora in her deposition on oath stated that on the same incident earlier a motor accident claim case was also lodged. It was further deposed that in that case the witness had stated that her son worked as a handyman in the vehicle owned by Sri Atul Saikia. In the cross examination, a suggestion was made that she had not stated that her son had not worked with one Debojit Gogoi, which was denied. A suggestion was also made that her son had not worked as a handyman in the vehicle AS03F/1374, which was again denied. 4. Before the Workmen Commissioner, the owner of the vehicle Debojit Gogoi was examined as DW-1. In his deposition, the DW-1, owner of the vehicle stated that he is the registered owner of the vehicle AS-03F/1374. He further deposed that the deceased Jiban Bora worked as a handyman in his vehicle and in the month of June, 2008 at about 7.30 p.m, while he was travelling in the vehicle, he fell down and got injured. In cross examination, DW-1 also stated that he had received copies from the motor accident claim case with regard to the same incident. A suggestion was also made to the witness that in the motor accident claim proceeding, he had stated that the deceased Jiban Bora had travelled as a passenger. In the proceeding, the salary statement of the deceased was also annexed as Exhibit-3. 5. A suggestion was also made to the witness that in the motor accident claim proceeding, he had stated that the deceased Jiban Bora had travelled as a passenger. In the proceeding, the salary statement of the deceased was also annexed as Exhibit-3. 5. The Senior Assistant of the appellant National Insurance Company while deposing as DW-2 in his deposition stated that prior to filing of the claim under the Workmen s Compensation Act, a claim for motor accident was also filed in the MACT, Golaghat. DW-2 in his deposition stated that as such in my opinion, the deceased was not the employee of the offending vehicle . In cross examination, DW-2 stated that as per his information, the deceased was a passenger and not a workman in the vehicle. 6. When we balance the evidence led by the claimant as well as by the appellant Insurance Company, we find that the claimant as CW-2 had made a specific statement that her deceased son Jiban Bora was a handyman in the vehicle bearing registration No. AS03F/1374 and the appellant Insurance Company had merely made suggestions to her that her son had actually not worked as a handyman, but was in fact a passenger. 7. Dw-1, who is a witness led by the appellant Insurance Company and was the owner of the vehicle AS-03F/1374, in his deposition had also made a specific statement that he is the registered owner of the vehicle and the deceased Jiban Bora worked as a handyman in his vehicle. Although suggestion to the contrary had been made by the Insurance Company, but no further evidence had been led that the deceased did not work as a handyman and in fact he was a passenger in the offending vehicle. On the other hand, we find that DW-2 who is the Senior Assistant of the Insurance Company in his deposition had stated that in his opinion, the deceased was not an employee of the offending vehicle and again in cross examination stated that as per his information, the deceased was a passenger and not a workman. 8. On the other hand, we find that DW-2 who is the Senior Assistant of the Insurance Company in his deposition had stated that in his opinion, the deceased was not an employee of the offending vehicle and again in cross examination stated that as per his information, the deceased was a passenger and not a workman. 8. The only evidence led by the appellant Insurance Company through DW-2 apart from the suggestion is that in the opinion of DW-2, the deceased was not an employee of the offending vehicle and which was again reiterated in cross examination that as per his information, the deceased was a passenger and not a workman. Under the law of evidence, an opinion expressed by a witness or a statement made by him on the basis of information would have no evidentiary value to establish that the deceased was not an employee of the offending vehicle and that he was not a workman. When we compare the evidence led by the appellant Insurance Company with that of the CW-1 the claimant herself and DW-1 the owner of the vehicle who had made categorical positive statement that the deceased was an employee in the offending vehicle, we are unable to accept that the appellant Insurance Company could dislodge the said evidence which lead us not to accept that the deceased was not an employee in the offending vehicle. 9. Mr. SS Sharma, learned senior counsel had strenuously argued that prior to filing of the claim of the Workmen s Compensation Act, the claimant had also preferred a motor accident claim in the MACT, Golaghat, which was subsequently withdrawn. Although it has been argued on behalf of the Insurance Company, we cannot accept that merely because a motor accident claim case was filed in the MACT, the claim made under the Workmen s Compensation Act would not be maintainable and that such claim per-se is a false claim. 10. Although it has been argued on behalf of the Insurance Company, we cannot accept that merely because a motor accident claim case was filed in the MACT, the claim made under the Workmen s Compensation Act would not be maintainable and that such claim per-se is a false claim. 10. The fact that a motor accident claim case was filed prior to the claim under the Workmen s Compensation Act, it may be a supporting evidence had the appellant Insurance Company been otherwise able to establish through some other evidence that the deceased was a passenger and not a workman, but a mere prior filing of a motor accident claim case by itself cannot be a primary evidence and be considered to be an appropriate material based upon which alone the Court can arrive at a conclusion that the claim of the claimants respondents is a false claim. 11. The appellant had also made an application under Order-XLI Rule-27 of the CPC praying that the appellant be allowed to bring in additional evidence to establish their case. By the order dated 24.08.2018 in Interlocutory Application (Civil) No.329/2018, being the application under Order-XLI Rule-27 CPC, it was provided that the question of allowing the appellant to adduce additional evidence would be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal. In the resultant situation, we put a query to the appellant Insurance Company as to which provision of Order-XLI Rule-27 the appellant intends to invoke. To the query, the reply given was that the appellant intends to invoke Order-XLI Rule-27(1)(aa). 12. Order-Xli Rule-27(1)(aa) of CPC provides that additional evidence can be allowed if the party seeking to produce the additional evidence establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not after exercising of due diligence be produced by him at the time when the decree in appeal was passed. Accordingly, we require the appellant to show that even after exercising of due diligence the additional evidence in the form of the claim petition in the motor accident claim case and the FIR registered could not be filed. 13. We have taken note of that in the written statement itself, the appellant Insurance Company had taken the stand as regards filing of the motor accident claim case and also referred to the FIR being lodged. 13. We have taken note of that in the written statement itself, the appellant Insurance Company had taken the stand as regards filing of the motor accident claim case and also referred to the FIR being lodged. As the mention of the claim petition as well as the FIR was made in the written statement itself, we cannot arrive at a conclusion that the appellant Insurance Company even after exercising of due diligence did not have the knowledge about the claim petition in the motor accident claim as well as the FIR. 14. In view of such conclusion, we are unable to accept that the appellant Insurance Company had succeeded in establishing that in spite of exercise of due diligence it was not within their knowledge as regards the materials that they seek to bring in as additional evidence. Accordingly, we are of the view that the appellant Insurance Company had failed to make out a case for allowing additional evidence under Order-XLI Rule-27(1)(aa) of CPC. 15. In view of the conclusion arrived at, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same stands dismissed. 16. Send back the LCR immediately.