- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2nd March, 1994 whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the appeal field by the appellant Insurance Company.
(2.) THE undisputed fact is that one Ashok Baitha died in a accident which took place on 10.1.1989 with the truck bearing registration No. BPY -4077. The legal representatives of the said deceased, Ashok Baitha, moved an application before the Com - missioner, Workmen Compensation, Hazaribagh for the grant of compensation on the ground, inter alia, that during the relevant time, the deceased was the driver of the said truck. The owner of the truck submitted an information to the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation through a letter dated 15.3.1990 stating therein that the accident took place on 10.1.1989 and the deceased Ashok Baitha who was the employee of the Company as driver. The appellant insurance company also appeared before the Commissioner and filed a written statement. Curiously enough no such defence was taken that the deceased Ashok Baitha was not the driver of the offending truck nor any defence was taken that the deceased was not the employee or the owner of the truck. The Commissioner after hearing the parties awarded compensation of Rs. 86.764/ -. Against the said award, the appellant filed appeal before this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 289/91 (R). The appellant for the first time, before this Court, assailed the award on the ground that it was Amarjit Kumar Singh, who was driver of the truck on the relevant time and the Ashok Baitha was Khalasi of another truck. In course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant, however, did not bring any evidence to show that Amarjit Kumar Singh was paid any compensation for the injury allegedly caused to him by reason of aforesaid accident. It is worth to mention here that the appellant did not choose to produce any additional evidence before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, therefore in absence of evidence rightly came to the conclusion that the judgment and award passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation awarding compensation was fully justified. In this appeal also, the appellant could not bring on record any evidence by filing any application under Order 41 of Rule 27. CPC.
(3.) WE are afraid that this court in letters Patent Court will take notice of the argument that has been canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant which has no nexus with the facts available on the record.;