JUDGMENT : The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 18.03.2015 in W.C.No.5 of 2012 of the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kakinada (hereinafter called, ‘the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation). 2. The facts of the case are as follows: The deceased-Pothula Narayan Rao (hereinafter called, ‘the deceased’) met with an accident on 05.09.2006 which arose out of and in the course of his employment while working in work site of the 1st opposite party, who is arrayed as 3rd respondent herein, i.e., M/s. Lal Constructions Company, at Kadgadaspur, DRDO, Phase-II Building construction work at Bangalore and he was succumbed to injuries on 06.09.2006. The respondents 1 and 2 herein, who are claimants in W.C.No.5 of 2012, who lost their breadwinner have filed the said claim application before the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kakinada, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. There is no dispute with regard to the accident and the employer and the employee relationship between the deceased and the 1st opposite party, i.e., the 3rd respondent herein. 3. The 1st opposite party-M/s. Lal Constructions Company, who is the 3rd respondent herein, filed counter and contended that it was given sub2 contract to M/s. Koundinyasa Constructions Company Private Limited and the said M/s. Koundinyasa Constructions Company Private Limited has obtained insurance policy, which is in force from 30.01.2006 to 29.01.2007 and the said M/s. Koundinyasa Constructions Company Private Limited has addressed a letter to change the insurance policy in the name of M/s. Lal Constructions Company and the said letter was marked as Ex.R8. The insurance policy covers 8 workmen, 3 semi-skilled, 3 un-skilled and 2 skilled workers. Basing upon the application made by the M/s. Koundinyasa Constructions Company Private Limited, the insurance policy was transferred in favour of the M/s. Lal Constructions Company on 07.09.2006 by the 2nd opposite party, i.e., the appellant herein. Therefore, the 1st opposite party-M/s. Lal Constructions Company pleads that the insurance policy was transferred and therefore, the 2nd opposite party-Insurance Company, who is the appellant herein, is liable to indemnify to claimants or to pay compensation to the claimants. 4. Therefore, the 1st opposite party-M/s. Lal Constructions Company pleads that the insurance policy was transferred and therefore, the 2nd opposite party-Insurance Company, who is the appellant herein, is liable to indemnify to claimants or to pay compensation to the claimants. 4. The 2nd opposite party-Insurance Company, who is the appellant herein, has contested the matter and contended that the 1st opposite party-M/s. Lal Constructions Company has not given any letter to amend the insurance policy in their name which was issued in the name of M/s. Koundinyasa Constructions Company Private Limited and after the accident and after the death of the deceased, the insurance policy was changed in the name of 1st opposite party-M/s. Lal Constructions Company on 07.09.2006 on the application filed by the M/s. Koundinyasa Constructions Company Private Limited. It was denied and stated that the insurance policy was not come into force since the date of death of deceased is 06.09.2006 and policy which was transferred on 07-09-2006 and also denied that the 1st opposite party-M/s. Lal Constructions Company has given sub-contract to M/s. Koundinyasa Constructions Company Private Limited and also denied the contention made by the 1st opposite party that the 2nd opposite party-insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Further it is contended that the insurance policy comes into force from the date of transfer and the effective date is 07-09-2006 and the deceased was died on 06-09-2006 on the date of death there is no existence of insurance policy in between the Lal Constructions Company and the appellant-Insurance Company and therefore, contended that the 2nd opposite party-insurance company, who is the appellant herein, is not liable to indemnify any compensation on behalf of the 1st opposite party i.e., M/s. Lal Constructions Company hence prayed to allow the appeal. 5. The Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation after considering the evidence on record, both facts and on law, vide an order dated 18.03.2015, directed the 1st and 2nd opposite parties to deposit an amount of Rs.9,05,520/- together with stamp fees payable of Rs.1,810/-, totaling to an amount of Rs.9,07,330/- only drawn in favour of the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kakinada. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the 2nd opposite party-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act on two grounds as asserted in the memorandum of appeal. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the 2nd opposite party-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act on two grounds as asserted in the memorandum of appeal. The first ground is that the 2nd opposite party-Insurance Company has not issued any insurance policy to M/s. Lal Construction Company, who is arrayed as 1st opposite party in the Claim Petition, and the second ground is that the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation has erroneously fixed the monthly wages as Rs.8,000/- of the deceased and erroneously allowed the claim and therefore, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the award passed in W.C.No.5 of 2012 dated 18.03.2015. 7. Heard Sri Naresh Birapaneni, learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company (2nd opposite party in the claim application) and Sri V.Sudhakara Reddy, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent herein-M/s. Lal Constructions Company (1st opposite party in the claim application and who is the employer of the deceased). 8. 7. Heard Sri Naresh Birapaneni, learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company (2nd opposite party in the claim application) and Sri V.Sudhakara Reddy, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent herein-M/s. Lal Constructions Company (1st opposite party in the claim application and who is the employer of the deceased). 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has reiterated the first ground in the memorandum of grounds of appeal and stated that the Insurance Company has issued insurance policy in favour of the insured i.e., M/s. Koundinyasa Constructions Company Private Limited and the same was transferred in the name of M/s. Lal Construction Company on 07.09.2006 and the same was marked as Ex.R7 before the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation and the accident was occurred on 05.09.2006 and the deceased was died on 06.09.2006 and as on the date of accident, the insurance policy was in the name of M/s. Koundinyasa Constructions Company Private Limited and the said insurance policy was not transferred in the name of the 1st opposite party- M/s. Lal Constructions Company and it is also stated that the 1st opposite party-M/s. Lal Constructions Company has not filed Memorandum of Article of Association or MOU to establish that the M/s. Lal Constructions Company has given sub-contract to the M/s. Koundinyasa Constructions Company Private Limited or to establish both are sister concerned companies or the Lal Constructions Company have filed any certificate relating to registration of Companies under the Companies Act to establish that the M/s. Koundinyasa Constructions Company Private Limited is a sub-contractor of M/s. Lal Constructions Company, therefore, mere assertion in the counter affidavit would not establish that the 1st opposite party-M/s. Lal Constructions Company is the parent company or the M/s. Koundinyasa Constructions Company Private Limited is the subcontractor of the 1st opposite party-M/s. Lal Constructions Company. 9. When document which is required to be reduced in writing as provided under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, no oral evidence is permissible, the documentary evidence will prevail over the oral evidence, no documentary evidence was filed to validate the oral evidence to establish the defence taken in the claim petition that the M/s. Lal Constructions Company is parental or sister concerned company of the M/s. Koundinyasa Constructions Company Private Limited was given subcontractor by the M/s. Lal Constructions Company. In the absence of such documentary evidence, no oral evidence is permissible and except the statement of 1st opposite party, no documentary or oral evidence was adduced. Hence, the statement made by the 1st opposite party cannot be basis for fixing the liability against the appellant-Insurance Company. 10. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the oral evidence cannot be relied upon. Admittedly, the accident was occurred on 05.09.2006 and the deceased was died on 06.09.2006 and the insurance policy was transferred in the name of M/s. Lal Constructions Company on 07.09.2006. 11. As on the date of the accident, there was no insurance policy issued/or in existence in favour of M/s. Lal Constructions Company. It is known law and in fact, the policy to the vehicle normally it should run with the vehicle. In the present case no vehicle was involved. Under section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the certificate of insurance and the policy shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom it was transferred will come into effect from the date of its transfer. Relevant part of Sec 157 of M V Act is extracted herein 157. Transfer of certificate of insurance.— (1) Where a person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter transfers to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer. 1[Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that such deemed transfer shall include transfer of rights and liabilities of the said certificate of insurance and policy of insurance.]. 12. In M/s. Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. v. New India Assurance Company Ltd., reported in 1996 (1) SCC 221 = AIR 1996 SC 586 the Hon’ble Apex Court held as here under and the judgment was followed in Balwant Singh & Sons v. National Insurance Company Ltd 2020 (11) SCC 745 : Thus, the entire chapter XI of the New Act concerns third party risks only. Thus, the requirements of that chapter are in relation to third party risks only and hence the fiction of Section 157 of the New Act must be limited thereto. The certificate of insurance to be issued in the prescribed form (See Form 51 prescribed under Rule 141 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989) must, therefore, relate to third party risks. Since the provisions under the New Act and the Old Act in this behalf are substantially the same in relation to liability in regard to third parties, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was right in the view it took based on the decision in Kondaih's case because the transferee-insured could not be said to be a third party qua the vehicle in question. It is only in respect of third party risks that Section 157 of the New Act provides that the certificate of insurance together with the policy of insurance described therein "shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred". If the policy of insurance covers other risks as well, e.g., damage caused to the vehicle of the insured himself, that would be a matter falling outside Chapter XI of the New Act and in the realm of contract for which there must be an agreement between the insurer and the transferee, the former undertaking to cover the risk or damage to the vehicle. (Emphasis supplied) 13. Under the quoted section 157 certificate of insurance relate to only third party risks. Hence the said policy is not applicable to the present case mere transfer of policy in the name of transferee company the insurer was not liable to indemnify the M/s. Lal Constructions Company, as the deceased is not third party to the claim. 14. In the present case, on the application filed by M/s. Koundinyasa Constructions Company Private Limited, the insurance policy was transferred in the name of M/s. Lal Constructions Company-1st opposite party on 07.09.2006. As on the date of the accident 05.09.2006 or on the date of death of the deceased 06.09.2006, the insurance policy was not transferred in the name of the 1st opposite party i.e., M/s. Lal Constructions Company-1st opposite party. As on the date of the accident 05.09.2006 or on the date of death of the deceased 06.09.2006, the insurance policy was not transferred in the name of the 1st opposite party i.e., M/s. Lal Constructions Company-1st opposite party. As there is no established evidence indicating that the M/s. Lal Constructions Company is a parent company or a sub-contract was given to M/s. Koundinyasa Constructions Company Private Limited or there is no evidence of amalgamation of the companies, the 2nd opposite party i.e., the Insurance Company-appellant herein is not liable to indemnify the compensation granted by the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation in favour of the claimants on behalf of the 1st opposite party, i.e., Lal Constructions Company. 15. A perusal of the order the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation, liability has been fixed jointly on both the opposite parties i.e., employer M/s. Lal Constructions Company as well as against insurance company. 16. The appellant-Insurance Company raised another ground but for taking income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month and in the absence of any evidence and contention, the learned Commissioner ought to have taken the wage of the deceased as per the Minimum Wages Act. 17. As there is no dispute with regard to the income of the deceased and as the employer of the deceased has categorically admitted the income of the deceased and only in the absence of the evidence of the income of the deceased, then the Minimum Wages Act would apply. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the income of the deceased. Hence, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to be rejected, as admitted facts need not be proved, whereas the employer has categorically admitted that the wage of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month. Accordingly, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is rejected. 18. As adverted in a judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Santro Devi (1997) I ACC 211, 1997 ACJ 111 (FB). Accordingly, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is rejected. 18. As adverted in a judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Santro Devi (1997) I ACC 211, 1997 ACJ 111 (FB). It is well settled that all laws irrespective of being procedural, substantive, or constitutional are aimed at setting up a society governed by rule of law, which postulates as understood by a common man of ordinary prudence, justice to all and individual concerned it is required from constitutional functionaries with foreseeability, to provide justice to individuals, though may not at the cost of the society at large, Justice has to be practical, responsible to realities of situation. 19. Therefore, the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation is directed to release the entire amount of compensation in favour of the claimants, who are the respondents 1 and 2 herein, and the 2nd opposite party-insurance company, who is the appellant herein, is hereby directed to recover the amount from the 1st opposite party-M/s. Lal Constructions Company, i.e., 3rd respondent herein. The appellant herein-Insurance Company may raise a ground that, pay and recovery is not permissible under law. As this Court already in C.M.A.No. 655 of 2018 has ordered pay and recovery is permissible therefore the appellant herein-Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the amount from the 1st opposite party- M/s. Lal Constructions Company, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court for recovery of money. 20. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs of the appeal. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any in this appeal shall stand closed.