JUDGMENT : NYAPATHY VIJAY, J. 1. The present appeal is filed under section 30 of Employees Compensation Act, questioning the order in W.C.No.06 of 2003 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tirupati dated 21.02.2005. 2. The parties are referred to as per their nomenclature before the Commissioner. 3. The facts leading to this appeal are as under: One P.Vara Prasad was employed as a driver by O.P.No.1 in lorry bearing No.ADC-1859. On 20.02.2002, while the deceased was driving the lorry, collided with KSRTC Bus bearing No.KA 01 F-7167 near Medarimitta on Bangalore Vijayawada road and as a result of the accident, the deceased driver died on the spot. The Medarimitta P.S., registered a case under Section 304-A and section 337 I.P.C., in Crime No.5 of 2002 against the driver of KSRTC Bus. The father of the deceased filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- as the deceased was employed by Opposite Party No.1 on a monthly salary of Rs.4,000/- with batta at Rs.100/- per day. In the claim application, the policy number of the vehicle was specifically mentioned as 051601/31/01/64268. 4. The O.P.No.1 refused to receive notice and was set ex parte on 17.11.2003. The insurance company/O.P.No.2 filed their counter disputing the claim, non-joinder of necessary parties, employment and sought for dismissal of the claim. No specific plea was taken disputing the policy number specifically mentioned in the claim petition. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the Commissioner framed as many as 7 issues and they read as under: 1. Whether the applicant was a workman as per the provisions of the Act and he died due to personal injuries he received in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. 2. What was the age of the deceased at the time of the accident? 3. What were the wages paid to the deceased at the time of the accident? 4. Amount of compensation payable? 5. Whether this Court having jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition or not? 6. Is there any bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties? 7. Who are liable to pay the compensation? 6. The claimant got marked six (6) documents-Exs.A.1 to A.6 and the claimant himself examined as A.W.1 and another individual-S.Gaffoor Saheb as A.W.2. The insurance company neither filed any documentary evidence nor led any oral evidence. 6. Is there any bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties? 7. Who are liable to pay the compensation? 6. The claimant got marked six (6) documents-Exs.A.1 to A.6 and the claimant himself examined as A.W.1 and another individual-S.Gaffoor Saheb as A.W.2. The insurance company neither filed any documentary evidence nor led any oral evidence. The Commissioner dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimant has not filed any proof of ownership of the vehicle by O.P.No.1 nor the insurance policy was filed. 7. In the present appeal, the counsel for the appellant filed insurance policy vide memo No.26419/2024 filed on 12.03.2024. The insurance policy No. 051601/31/01/64268 mentioned in the claim petition tallies with the insurance policy filed along with the memo. The insurance policy mentions the name of O.P.No.1 as the insurer and the vehicle number as ADC-1859. The period of policy was shown as 28.12.2001 to 27.12.2002. 8. A copy of the memo along with the policy was furnished to the counsel for the insurance company and in response and on instructions, it is fairly informed to the Court that there is no dispute to the policy. 9. In view of the filing of the policy, in this appeal, the substantial question of law that arises for consideration is; "(i) whether the appellate Court in an appeal under Section 30 of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 could receive additional evidence and adjudicate the appeal on the basis of additional evidence?". 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Sharay Sing v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., & others 2003 (10) SCC 664 examined copy of insurance policy produced before that court for the first time. In the above case, though the examination of the insurance policy for the first time was opposed by the contesting respondent, the same was rejected by Hon'ble Supreme Court as the very basis of the claim is based on the insurance policy. This observation makes it clear that this Court is not precluded from considering the policy for adjudicating liability. 11. Even otherwise, fairness demands the insurance company to file the insurance policy as the workmen cannot be said to be in possession of it. It is more so, in a case of this nature as the policy no. was specifically mentioned in the claim application. 11. Even otherwise, fairness demands the insurance company to file the insurance policy as the workmen cannot be said to be in possession of it. It is more so, in a case of this nature as the policy no. was specifically mentioned in the claim application. In this case, the insurance company's conduct is unfair as they, being in possession of the insurance policy, intentionally did not file the said document. In this context, the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. New Delhi v. Jugal Kishore and others 1998 1 SCC 626 at para 10 would be relevant; "10. Before parting with the case, we consider it necessary to refer to the attitude often adopted by the Insurance Companies, as was adopted even in this case, of not filing a copy of the policy before the Tribunal and even before the High Court in appeal. In this connection what is of significance is that the claimants for compensation under the Act are invariably not possessed of either the policy or a copy thereof. This Court has consistently emphasised that it is the duty of the party which is in possession of a document which would be helpful in doing justice in the cause to produce the said document and such party should not be permitted to take shelter behind the abstract doctrine of burden of proof. This duty is greater in the case of instrumentalities of the State such as the appellant who are under an obligation to act fairly. In many cases even the owner of the vehicle for reasons known to him does not choose to produce the policy or a copy thereof. We accordingly wish to emphasise that in all such cases where the Insurance Company concerned wishes to take a defence in a claim petition that its liability is not in excess of the statutory liability it should file a copy of the insurance policy along with its defence. Even in the instant case had it been done so at the appropriate stage necessity of approaching this Court in civil appeal would in all probability have been avoided. Filing a copy of the policy, therefore, not only cuts short avoidable litigation but also helps the court in doing justice between the parties. The obligation on the part of the State or its instrumentalities to act fairly can never be over-emphasised. 12. Filing a copy of the policy, therefore, not only cuts short avoidable litigation but also helps the court in doing justice between the parties. The obligation on the part of the State or its instrumentalities to act fairly can never be over-emphasised. 12. Now that the insurance policy is on record and there is no dispute about the validity of the policy. The court deems it appropriate to fix the compensation taking the age of the deceased as 26 years and the notional income as Rs 3000/- being a reasonable monthly wage at that relevant time. The quantum of compensation payable under section 4(i)(a) R/w section 4 and schedule IV of the act is as under : 50/100 x 3000 x 215.28 = 3,22,920/- 13. The Insurance company shall make the payment along with statutory interest from the date of accident till the date of payment within a period of three (3) months. 14. The order of the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tirupati dated 21.02.2005 in W.C.No.06 of 2003 is set aside and the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.