THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3377 of 2000 Date:20.11.2009 Between: The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company. ..Appellant. and Shaik Md. Khasim Alias Nithu Kittu Md. Khasim and others….Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3377 of 2000 ORDER: This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company against the award of the Commissioner for Women’s Compensation, Guntur, passed in W.C.No.187 of 1997 dated 28.02.2000. Aforesaid claim was filed on account of death of Shaik Bhasha, son of the claimant No.1, who was working as a cleaner on OP-I’s Bus bearing No.AP 7T 3577 belonging to the seventh respondent and insured with the appellant. The said bus met with an accident on 24.09.1995 resulting in death of Shaik Bhasha, the cleaner. In was alleged in the claim petition that the deceased was aged 22 years at the time of the accident and he was getting Rs.1,500/- per month and as such a compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- was claimed. On the basis of the evidence adduced, learned Commissioner came to the conclusion that the risk of the deceased was clearly covered by the insurance policy and keeping in view the monthly earnings of the deceased, his age and applying the relevant factor, a sum of Rs.1,22,314/- was arrived at towards compensation. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the claimants. Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant- insurance company questions the liability imposed on the insurance company by contending that the learned Commissioner has not properly appreciated the risk covered. In fact the learned counsel seeks time to enable him to produce the insurance policy to substantiate his contention that the risk of the deceased was not covered. Learned Commissioner found that it was a renewal policy and there would be necessity of conductor and cleaner. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company cannot be accepted inasmuch as no such policy or renewal was produced before the Commissioner nor in this appeal. The document, which is within the control and custody of the appellant, ought to have been produced at the earliest opportunity. Said request of the learned counsel, therefore, is rejected. Consequently, the award of the learned Commissioner deserves to be confirmed as no other ground exists warranting interference with the said award. The appellant, therefore, is liable to discharge the liability under the award. In the event of the appellant producing the relevant insurance policy before a competent Court in support of its claim, it shall be open for the appellant-insurance company to seek appropriate proceedings against the seventh respondent-owner of the offending vehicle for recovery of the said amount. Subject to the above observations, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ (VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J) 20th November, 2009 GHN