Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1376 (RAJ)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Ladu Bai

2004-09-22

PRAKASH TATIA

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties on appeal. 2. The questions raised in this appeal are that the appellant produced a report from the competent authority i.e. the District Transport Officer, Hyderabad through their Investigator K. Bhaskar and placed on record as Ex. A/4 along with the letter of the Investigator Ex.A/3 evidencing that the driving licence relied upon by the driver of the vehicle and owner of the vehicle was never issued by the office at Hyderabad from where it is claimed to have been issued. Despite these facts, the Tribunal held that the appellant Company is liable to pay the compensation amount. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted in all fairness that the appellant Company appointed an Investigator to find out whether the licence was issued by the Competent Authority who submitted an application before the Competent Authority and he obtained report from said authority and produced the report before the Tribunal. The report given by the Additional Licensing Authority, RTA, Hyderabad dated 22.4.1997 is a public document and there was no reason for not believing this public document. The Trial Court rejected the public document because of non-production of appellant's Investigator K. Bhaskar. Learned counsel for the appellant referred Sections 74 and 76 read with Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act. In support of his contention the original documents of the public documents are not required and public document can be proved by producing the certified copies of the said documents. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that appellant after getting the report from the Investigator, gave a registered notice to the owner of the vehicle as well as the driver of the vehicle but they did not choose to give reply to the notice of the appellant Insurance Company. A copy of the notice as well as original postal receipts were placed on record by the appellant Company. It is submitted that in view of the above, adverse inference should have been drawn against the owner of the vehicle and driver of the vehicle. 5. I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. The case of the appellant Insurance Company is that they appointed Investigator K. Bhaskar. It is submitted that in view of the above, adverse inference should have been drawn against the owner of the vehicle and driver of the vehicle. 5. I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. The case of the appellant Insurance Company is that they appointed Investigator K. Bhaskar. But from record, it appears that the appointment letter has not been placed on record by the appellant Company evidencing that said K. Bhaskar was appointed to investigate the matter. However, even if it is presumed that said K. Bhaskar was appointed to investigate the licence of the driver, even then, he was not produced in evidence by the appellant. The alleged certificate Ex.A/4 is not the copy of the original record nor it can be said to be a certified copy of the public document as required to be issued under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act It is true that there is a different procedure for proving the public documents and the certified copies of the public documents. The public document can be admitted in evidence for proving the facts mentioned in official record, but as stated above, Ex,A/4 is not the copy of the original record. 6. Not only this but the said document Ex.A/4 though alleged to have been received by the appellant Company in the year 1997, was not brought to the notice of the owner of the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle till closure of their evidence before the Tribunal that too for about four years. The appellant submitted reply to the claim petition before the Tribunal on 10.11.1997 stating therein that appellant Company got the investigation conducted by Investigator but did not mention the name of the person who conducted the investigation. Even in the notice, copy of which is on record, there is no mention that appellant is relying upon above report or certificate. There is no explanation why that report was not brought to the notice of the driver and the owner of the vehicle, so that they could have produced evidence to rebut appellant's evidence. 7. Even in the notice, copy of which is on record, there is no mention that appellant is relying upon above report or certificate. There is no explanation why that report was not brought to the notice of the driver and the owner of the vehicle, so that they could have produced evidence to rebut appellant's evidence. 7. In these circumstances, the Tribunal did not believe the evidence produced by the appellant and relied upon the evidence produced by the owner of the vehicle Roshanlal and relied upon the licence Ex.A/8 and verification report Ex.A/9 and found that the licence which was issued on 10.10.96 was renewed up to the period of 1999. The Tribunal has accepted one evidence out of two evidences and thereafter recorded the finding of fact which appears to be factually correct.In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the appeal. Hence appeal of the appellant is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******