JUDGMENT & ORDER : MARLI VANKUNG, J. Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr.Saurabh Pradhan, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 remain unrepresented though notice was duly served upon them. 2. This is an appeal filed u/s 30 of the Employees Compensation Act , 1923, against the Judgment & Award dated 17.11.2017, passed by the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, Aizawl in W.C. Case No. 7 of 2016, wherein, the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, Aizawl directed the appellant/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs 4,04,120/- (Rupees four lakh four thousand one hundred and twenty) only with interest @ 7% p.a from the date of an accident i.e. 27.04.2016 to the claimant/respondent No. 1. The interlocutory applications filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C, 1908 in I.A.(Civil) No. 10 of 2023 is also considered along with the instant appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case is that on 27.04.2016, at around 10:20 am, one Mr. P.C. Lalbiakzara met with an accident at Electric Veng, Aizawl, and sustained injuries by falling off from the top of a Maxicab (Sumo) bearing registration No. MZ-04-7257 due to the snapping of the rope while he tied up the passengers luggage and he succumbed to his injuries on 04.05.2016. On the death of Mr. P.C. Lalbiakzara, his wife, who is respondent No. 1, herein approached the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, Aizawl by filing W.C. Case No. 7 of 2016 u/s 22 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 claiming a compensation of Rs 9,97,800/- (Rupees nine lakhs ninety seven thousand eight hundred). The owner of the vehicle/respondent No. 2 had contested the case by claiming that his vehicle was validly insured with the appellant/New India Assurance Co. Ltd and as such, he was not liable to pay the compensation. The appellant/ Insurance Company also contested the claim by denying that the victim, Mr. P.C. Lalbiakzara died in course of his employment and also contested the income of the deceased which was claimed to be Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) per month. The appellant also denied the validity of all the documents annexed in the claim petition except the insurance policy. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Commissioner, Workman Compensation framed the following issues: “i) Whether the deceased is a workman within the meaning of the Act? 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) per month. The appellant also denied the validity of all the documents annexed in the claim petition except the insurance policy. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Commissioner, Workman Compensation framed the following issues: “i) Whether the deceased is a workman within the meaning of the Act? ii) Whether the accident arouse out of or in the course of the deceased’s employment? iii) Whether the amount of compensation claimed is due, or any part that amount? iv) Where the OP is liable to pay such compensation as is due?” During the course of proceedings, the claimant examined himself and 3 other witnesses. Thereafter, after hearing both the parties, all the issues were decided in favor of the claimant. The learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation held the appellant liable to pay Rs 4,04,120/- (Rupees four lakh four thousand one hundred and twenty) along with 7% interest p.a from the date of the accident, till payment. 4. The learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation calculated the compensation amount due to the claimant as follows:- Since the income of the deceased was not known, as per Government Notification the income of the deceased was taken as Rs. 4000/- per month. As per section 4(1)(a), where death results from the injury an amount equal to 50% of the monthly wages of the deceased workman multiplied by the relevant factor or an amount Rs. 1,00,000/- whichever is more is to be awarded. Thus the income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 4000/- per month as per the said notification. By applying Section 4(1) of the W.C. Act, 1923, half of the monthly wages of the deceased workman i.e. 2000/- has to be multiplied by the relevant factor i.e. 189.56. In the result, the applicant is entitled to get (a) compensation as per S.4(1)(a) Rs.2000 x 189.56 =Rs.3,79,120.00 (b) Funeral expenses in light of the of the S.C JO in Jaya Biswal & Ors Vs Branch Manager, IFFCO Tokio General = Rs. 25,000.00 Total amount of compensation =Rs.4,04,120.00 (Rupees four lakhs four thousand one hundred twenty) only 5. Mr. In the result, the applicant is entitled to get (a) compensation as per S.4(1)(a) Rs.2000 x 189.56 =Rs.3,79,120.00 (b) Funeral expenses in light of the of the S.C JO in Jaya Biswal & Ors Vs Branch Manager, IFFCO Tokio General = Rs. 25,000.00 Total amount of compensation =Rs.4,04,120.00 (Rupees four lakhs four thousand one hundred twenty) only 5. Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Appellant/Insurance Company, while taking steps for compliance of the Judgment & Award dated 17.11.2017, came to learn that the insurance policy which was issued to the owner of the accident vehicle was a fake insurance policy and as such the appellant had filed a complaint to the Officer-in-charge (O/C), Khawzawl P.S. on 03.08.2018, requesting the concerned authority to take necessary steps. The appellant/insurance company had also deputed an investigator to investigate into the matter and the concerned investigator had submitted his investigation report on 20.08.2018, with the finding that the insurance policy was issued to the respondent No. 2/ owner by one, Mr. Vanlalhmunsiama of Khawzawl Zuchhip Veng, who in turn had obtained the same from Mr. Zoramsiama of Khatla, Aizawl. The investigator however, was unable to trace the whereabouts of Mr. Zoramsiama, thus FIRs dated 23.07.2018 and 03.08.2018 was filed regarding issuance of Fake Insurance documents/policy. The Appellant/Insurance Company had also filed a Review Petition No. 1 of 2018 before the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation along with a condonation of delay application which was dismissed in W.C. Misc. Case No. 1 of 2018 vide Order dated 30.11.2018 and hence, the appeal and the Interlocutory Application /I.A. (Civil) No. 10 of 2023 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, 1908 for production of additional evidence to prove the fake Insurance Policy. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that upon the discovery that the insurance policy is a fake insurance policy, the Appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay the said awarded amount, and it is for the owner of the vehicle/Respondent No. 2 to compensate the claimant/respondent No. 1, wife of the deceased Mr. P.C. Lalbiakzara, who died in the course of his employment. The learned counsel further submitted that, the fact that the insurance policy was a fake policy was not within the knowledge of the insurance company at the time when the matter was heard and considered by the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation. 7. Per Contra, Mr. P.C. Lalbiakzara, who died in the course of his employment. The learned counsel further submitted that, the fact that the insurance policy was a fake policy was not within the knowledge of the insurance company at the time when the matter was heard and considered by the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation. 7. Per Contra, Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent No. 1, submitted that whether or not, the insurance policy is a fake policy, should have been considered and proved before the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation. He submitted that in the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, 1908 in I.A.(Civil) No. 10 of 2023, the appellant/insurance company has to show that the same was discovered only after due diligence. However, in the instant case, there is nothing to show that the insurance company could not know of the fake insurance policy even after due diligence. The learned counsel submitted that the Insurance Company was negligent in not verifying whether the said insurance policy was fake or not while the matter was being heard and considered before the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, Aizawl. He submitted that the claim petition was filed by the claimant on 16.05.2016 and the matter was heard by the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, wherein, both the parties were given ample chance to adduce the evidence which was finally disposed of on 17.11.2017. It was due to the negligence of the Insurance Company that their discovered about the alleged fake insurance policy as claimed by them at the belated stage, after the judgment & award was already made. He submitted that the Appellant/Insurance Company has not taken due diligence in discovering the same when copies of the insurance policy was duly furnished to the Insurance company and the issue whether the insurance policy was fake or not, cannot be considered at the appellate stage, when the same was not considered nor mentioned before the learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation. 8. The learned counsel in support of his submission has cited the judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Policy Ltd. Vs. Esther Lalrosangkimi Varte & Ors., reported in 2021 (2) GLT 261. 9. This court has given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties, and has also perused the documents on record. Esther Lalrosangkimi Varte & Ors., reported in 2021 (2) GLT 261. 9. This court has given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties, and has also perused the documents on record. It is seen that, it is an admitted fact that on 27.04.2016, Mr. P.C. Lalbiakzara, the husband of the claimant/respondent No. 1, died in an accident by falling off from the top of a Maxi Cab (Sumo) bearing Registration No. MZ-01-7257, due to the snapping of the rope while he, during the course of employment, while tying the passengers luggage. The compensation amount awarded by the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation which was calculated to an amount of Rs. 4,04,120/- (Rupees four lakhs four thousand one hundred and twenty) along with 7% interest p.a. from the date of the accident, is also not under challenge in the instant appeal. The only issue to be looked into is whether the claim that the insurance policy is a fake policy or not, can be allowed to be considered at this appellate stage, by allowing the Interlocutory Application registered as I.A (Civil) no.10 0f 2023 for producing such additional documents. 10. It is seen that while the matter was being considered by the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation in WC Case No. 7 of 2016, the instant appellant/Insurance Company had not contested the Insurance Policy exhibited as Ext-3 and there was not even a whisper that the Insurance policy could be a fake policy. It is also noted that the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation had dismissed the Review Petition No. 1 of 2018 to consider or to allow additional evidence for proving that the Insurance policy was a fake policy by dismissing the condonation of delay application in WC Misc. Case No. 1 of 2018 vide the Order dated 30.11.2018. Subsequently, the instant appeal and interlocutory application under Order 41 rule 27 Civil Procedure Code were filed by the Insurance Company by claiming that when steps for compliance of the Judgment & Award dated 17.11.2017 was taken by the Appellant/Insurance Company, it was discovered by their Investigating officer, that the Insurance Policy which was issued to the owner of the vehicle was a fake Insurance Policy. 11. 11. This court, finds that Order 41 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code envisages certain circumstances when the Appellate court can allow additional evidence i.e if it finds that: i. The evidence was not available or could not be produced in the lower court despite due diligence. ii. The evidence is necessary to enable the appellate court to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. iii. The additional evidence is relevant and material to the case. 12. In the instant case the claimant/respondent No. 1 had filed the application for compensation before the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation on 16.05.2016 and it is not the case of the appellant that the claimant had willfully produced a fake Insurance policy, which the claimant had exhibited as Exhibit-3, to prove that the accident vehicle was duly insured with the Appellant/Insurance Company. It is seen that no explanation, whatsoever, is given by the Appellant/Insurance Company, as to why no steps were taken by them to verify the authenticity of the Insurance Policy during the trial of the case in WC Case No. 7 of 2016. The only explanation given is the knowledge that the Insurance Policy was fake was discovered after the pronouncement of the judgment dated 17.11.2017, when steps were taken for payment of the awarded amount to the claimant. Thus, it is seen that nothing appears to have been done by the Insurance Company before filing of their written objection or even during the pendency of the trial. Therefore, it can be seen that the Insurance Company had not taken the trouble to verify the authenticity of the Insurance Policy at the relevant time. This court is of the considered view that a claim of the Insurance Policy being fake should have been well within the knowledge of the Insurance Company when the case was heard and considered before the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation. 13. This Court, find it appropriate at this stage to refer to the judgment and Order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company vs. Esther Lalrosangkimi Varte & Ors. 13. This Court, find it appropriate at this stage to refer to the judgment and Order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company vs. Esther Lalrosangkimi Varte & Ors. (Supra) wherein it was observed that the parties to an appeal are not entitled to produce additional evidence before the Appellate Court unless the parties seeking production of additional evidence is able to establish that despite due diligence, the evidence which was not even in his knowledge could be produced or such evidence is required by the Appellate Court to pronounce it’s judgment or for any other substantial cause. This court concurs with the above observation and finds that in the instant case, the Appellant/Insurance Company has not been able to establish that despite due diligence, the evidence of the fake Insurance Policy was not in their knowledge. This court finds that had the Appellant/Insurance Company been more vigilant and diligent, their claim that the insurance Policy was a fake policy could have been in their knowledge during the pendency of the case before the learned Tribunal. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the Insurance Company had not exercised due diligence while contesting the claim of the claimant/respondent before the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation. This court has also noted that such a claim of fake Insurance Policy would still be required to be proved and this court has also noted that while the fact that the claimant is entitled to be awarded compensation on the death of her husband Mr. P.C Lalbiakzara, who died in the accident during the course of his employment is not disputed, the incident had occurred way back in 16.05.2016 and Mr. P.C. Lalbiakzara died on 04.05.2016 due to the accident, but the claimant/wife of the deceased has been denied the compensation awarded to her, till date. 14. In view of the above facts and circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice, this Court does find it fit not to interfere with the Judgment & Order of the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation in WC Case No. 7 of 2016 dated 17.11.2017 and accordingly, the awarded amount of Rs. 4,04,120/- (Rupees four lakhs four thousand one hundred and twenty) along with 7% interest p.a. judgment and thereafter, the deposited amount with interest, is to be disbursed to the claimant/respondent No.1 after due verification. 15. 4,04,120/- (Rupees four lakhs four thousand one hundred and twenty) along with 7% interest p.a. judgment and thereafter, the deposited amount with interest, is to be disbursed to the claimant/respondent No.1 after due verification. 15. Accordingly, MFA No. 1 of 2021 stands dismissed and disposed of along with the connected I.A. (Civil) No. 11 of 2023.