THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA C.R.P. Nos.2860 and 2892 of 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: As the issue involved in both these revision petitions being the same, they are clubbed and disposed of by this common order. These two revision petitions are directed against the orders dated 31.12.2008 in I.A. No. 17 of 2008 in W.C No. 10 of 2008 and I.A. No. 18 of 2008 in W.C. No. 11 of 2008 respectively on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Mahabubnagar. Brief facts of the case are that W.C. No. 10 of 2008 is filed by the petitioners before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Mahabubnaar under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) against the respondents herein seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs each, as provided for under Rule 20 of A.P. Workmen’s Compensation (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, 1953 (for short ‘the Rules’) on account of the death of the Cleaner of the truck bearing No. AP 28U 444 by name, Riyaz Ahmed. It is stated that in the said case, the said Riyaz Ahmed who was the Cleaner of the said vehicle was on duty along with the 1st petitioner, who is his father. It is stated that the 1st petitioner was driving the vehicle at the relevant point of time. According to the petitioners, on 26.5.2002 while they were transporting new Yamaha motor vehicles from the State of Madhya Pradesh to Calicut of Kerala State, i.e., on the intervening night of 26/27.5.2002, the said vehicle met with an accident at Shevai Village on Mogul road in the limits of P.S. Jashwathnagar of Madhya Pradesh. On account of the said accident, the said Riyaz Ahmed, who is the son of the petitioners herein died instantaneously and a case in Crime No. 192 of 202 was registered by the Itava Police Station. On account of the death of the said Riyaz Ahmed, the petitioners herein approached the Commissioner under the Act and filed the said W.C. under Rule 20 of the said Rules claiming compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs. So far as W.C. No. 11 of 2008 is concerned, the said W.C. is filed by the 1st petitioner, who is the injured claimant stating that in the very same accident, he sustained fracture to his back bone and nose, besides receiving grievous injuries to his left jaw, teeth, both hands and legs, left ear, neck and head. According to the petitioner, he took treatment in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad from 30.5.2002 to 14.6.2002 for the injuries sustained by him. Thereafter, he also took treatment in a private nursing home for the said injuries. He further stated that he spent a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for his treatment and extra nourishment. He also stated that he is taking treatment for the fracture of backbone and nose and still some more treatment is required. He also pleaded that he had become permanently disabled on account of the fracture sustained by him and he is not in a position to work as a driver and he is deprived of his earnings. Therefore, he filed the aforesaid W.C. seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. It is also seen from the record that at the time of filing of the said W.Cs., the petitioners did not file the following documents: 1) Photostat copy of C.C. of G.D. entry certificate of P.S. Jaswantpur Village of Itawa District, U.P., dated 27.5.002. 2) Photostat copy of C.C. of English translation of Document No.1. 3) Photostat copy of C.C. of report of Itawa Police Station with its translation in English 4) Photostat copy of C.c. of insurance policy of Vehicle No. AP 28 U 444 Hence, they filed I.A. Nos. 17 and 18 of 2008 under Order 7 Rule 14 of C.P.C. requesting the Commissioner to receive the said documents. However, as stated, supra, the Commissioner dismissed the said applications as not maintainable. Hence, the present revisions. Heard both sides. The impugned order reads as under: “I.A. filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of 3 of C.P.C. is hereby rejected since the Rule or order No. 7 is not applicable to the proceedings of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation under W.C. Act or Rules. Further Rule 21 of A.P.W.C. Rules, 1953 related to production of documents. When the applicant for relief based upon documents that shall be appended to the application. Sub-rule 2 states any other document which any party tender in evidence shall be produced at or before the first hearing. Therefore from documents mentioned in I.A. cannot be received by Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation as the same cannot be admissible in evidence under Rule 21(3) of A.P.W.C. Rules.” Rule 21 of the Rules which deals with the production of documents reads as under: (1) When the application for relief is based on a document, the document shall be appended to the application. (2) Any other document which any party desires to tender in evidence shall be produced at or before the first hearing. (3) Any document which is not produced at or within the time specified under sub-rule (1) or (2), as the case may be, shall not without the sanction of the Commissioner, be admissible in evidence on behalf of the party who should have produced it. (4) Nothing in this rule applies to any document which is produced for the purpose of cross-examining a witness or is handed to a witness to refresh his memory. It is true that every document on which the aggrieved person places reliance shall be filed/annexed to the application at the time of filing of the said application itself. But, however, it does not mean that no such document shall be filed at a later stage. In fact, according to sub-rule (3) of Rule 21,any document which is not produced at or within the time specified in sub-rule (1) or (2), as the case may be, shall not without the sanction of the Commissioner, be admissible in evidence on behalf of the party who should have produced it. From the aforesaid provision, it is quite clear that if a document is not filed along with the application, the same can be accepted in evidence, but however, sanction or permission of the Court is required. Here, the Commissioner, who is conferred with the power under the Act, in my considered view, is not precluded from accepting the said documents stating that Rule 21 prohibits acceptance of such documents for the reason that they are not appended to the application. No doubt, it is true that Order 7 Rule 14 has no application to the proceedings before the Commissioner for the reason that Rule 21 of the Rules deal with only certain provisions of the C.P.C. In fact, the petitioners ought to have filed the said applications only under Rule 21 of the Rules. If the Commissioner dismissed the applications only on the ground of maintainability, probably, this Court would not have interfered with the said orders. But, however, the applications are dismissed on altogether a different ground. Apart from stating that the said application is not maintainable, the Commissioner went to the extent of saying that every document shall be filed at the time when the application under Rule 20 is filed. This, in my considered view, is not correct. In fact, Rule 21 of the Rules and Order 7 Rule 14 of C.P.C., are analogous to each other. As it is stated that the aforesaid provisions of C.P.C. are not applicable, Rule 14 has been introduced enabling the authorities to submit documents even at a later stage, and it is for the Court to accept them provided the said explanation offered by the petitioners is acceptable. The explanation offered by the petitioners for not tendering these documents at the time of filing of the applications under Rule 20 of the Act are that these documents were all in Hindi and as the certified copies of the documents are in the State of Madhya Pradesh, it took some time for them to receive those documents appears to be plausible. Under the circumstances, the Commissioner ought to have accepted the said documents as provided for under Rule 21 of the Rules. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set-aside with a direction to the Commissioner to accept the said documents and proceed with the cases in accordance with law. No costs. As the W.Cs., are of the year 2008, the Authority is directed to give utmost priority and decide the same expeditiously. ____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J Date:4th August, 2010 pnb