Sayyed 30-FA.1148.2019.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1148 OF 2019 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.17936 OF 2022 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1482 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3355 OF 2015 Dr. Amol D. Waje ...Appellant/Applicant Versus The Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents _____________________________________________________ Mr. Sachin Gite for the Appellant/Applicant. Mr. Amol Gatne for Respondent No.1. _____________________________________________________ CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J. DATE : 4 MARCH 2026 ORDER: 1. Admit. 2. Since the issue involved is very narrow and the Court proposes to remand the matter, same is heard finally at the admission stage. 3. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. Substantial question of law which arises is as under :- “Whether, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was justified in coming to the conclusion that respondent no.1-insurance company is not liable for compensation ?” 1 of 4 2026:BHC-AS:10665 Sayyed 30-FA.1148.2019.doc 4. The appellant, owner of vehicle has challenged the findings given in paragraphs 13 to 15 of the impugned order dated 20 March 2013, whereby the insurance company has been exonerated on the ground that insurance policy no.162300/31/28/01/0001/624 was not produced by the original applicants who are respondent nos.2 to 5 in the present appeal. The policy which was produced by these applicants had different number and covered different period. The Commissioner in paragraphs 13 to 15 has stated that since the insurance policy no. 162300/31/28/01/0001/624 was not produced and what was produced did not cover the accident period, therefore, the insurance company was not held liable. 5. The appellant vehicle owner has now filed an application under Order 41 and Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to bring on record the insurance policy bearing no.162300/31/28/01/0001/624 issued by the insurance company for the period during which the accident occurred. He submitted that the copy of this insurance policy could not have been filed with the applicants because they did not have it and, therefore, they could not produce. The vehicle owner though a party to the proceedings inadvertently did not produce this insurance policy. 6. In my view, consideration of this insurance policy is crucial for adjudication of liability of the insurance company. The dispute arises out of the Employee's Compensation Act which is a welfare legislation and if there existed insurance policy covering the period for which we are concerned and same was not produced then certainly no mileage can be drawn by non-production of such a document. The consideration of this document is necessary for deciding the liability of the insurance company to the original applicant who died in the accident. Therefore, 2 of 4 Sayyed 30-FA.1148.2019.doc under Order 41 Rule 27(b), I am of the view that this document is required to be considered for examining the extent of liability, if any, of the insurance company. 7. In view of above, the impugned order dated 20 March 2013 is remanded back to the Commissioner for the limited purpose of deciding whether insurance company can be made liable under the policy which is admitted as additional evidence today. 8. All the contentions of all the parties with respect to the said document are kept open including its admissibility and whether any such policy was at all issued. The Commissioner after hearing all the parties and after examining document which is admitted today will adjudicate on the liability of the insurance company. No other points will be raised by any of the parties before the Commissioner. 9. It is also important to note that had the appellant vehicle owner produced this insurance company and the insurance company would have been held liable then they would not have been saddled with interest liability till today. The delay, if any, to grant compensation by insurance company to the applicant is attributable to the vehicle owner. Therefore, if the Commissioner comes to a conclusion that the insurance company is liable under the said policy to compensate the original claimant then the Commissioner would not pass an order directing the insurance company to pay interest from 1 April 2015 till today. However, the Commissioner may consider directing payment of interest jointly and severally upto 31 March 2015 since there is an agreement between the vehicle owner and the original claimant dated 30 March 2015, whereby the vehicle owner has settled the matter alongwith interest with the claimant. 3 of 4 Sayyed 30-FA.1148.2019.doc 10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms. Consequently, interim/civil applications do not survive and are accordingly disposed of. [ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ] 4 of 4 Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 05/03/2026 12:24:07