NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MAHFOOZA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The appellant is challenging the impugned award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 28.5.2001. The claimants are the widow and three children of the deceased Mahmood Khan who died in a motor accident.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant first submitted that only the photocopy of the driving licence was filed before the Tribunal and not the original. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anbari, 2000 ACJ 469 (SC). We have perused the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court and we are of the opinion that the same is distinguishable. We may mention that a Tribunal is not a regular civil court and hence the strict rules of Civil Procedure Code or the Evidence Act do not apply to a Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision has mentioned that when the fact of the validity of the photocopy of the licence was challenged then the Tribunal should not have accepted it. In our opinion, the way of challenging the validity of the photocopy of the driving licence which was filed before the Tribunal is to approach the authority who is alleged to have issued that licence and to enquire from that transport authority whether the licence was genuine or fake. In this case that was not done. The claimant is the widow with her minor children and she obtained the photocopy of the driving licence and filed the same. It could hardly be expected that she could have done more. If the appellant wanted to dispute this photocopy it could have approached the authority which is alleged to have issued the licence for enquiry about the genuineness of the said photocopy, and if the transport authority had found after enquiry that the same appears to be fake then of course the photocopy can be rejected. However, in this case there is no averment that the appellant approached the authority which issued the licence. Hence we are not in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the appellant on this point.