NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SUNITA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the insurer, The New India Assurance Company Limited, Ludhiana, challenging the award dated 13.12.2011 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short, "the Tribunal") challenging the liability of the appellant to satisfy the award. The plea taken by the insurance company in the case is that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence and on this ground, the insurer ought to be given the recovery rights against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that to prove the fact that the driving licence of respondent No. 1 was not valid, the appellant moved an application before the Tribunal, which is Ex. R1. According to him, on this application report was sought by the Tribunal from the Licensing Authority, Gwalior about the genuineness or otherwise of the driving licence. According to him, the report has been received as Ex.R2 which proves that the licence was not valid. According to him, when the Tribunal itself writes to the Licensing Authority of a particular place to report about the genuineness or otherwise of a driving licence and the report comes that the same is not genuine, the report is admissible in evidence and no other evidence is required to prove the factum of driving licence being not valid. According to him, the report became a public document. In this regard, he has placed reliance on a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this court in Jagmohan Singh v. United India Ltd. Insurance Company and others. Civil Revision No. 5768 of 2001 decided on 31.1.2002 where it has been held that the report becomes admissible.

(2.) A perusal Ex. R2 would show that it is a report coming from Licensing Authority, Gwalior. It is hot evident as to by what mode it came and in the absence of anyone to prove that this report was made by the Licensing Authority after consulting the record of the Authority, it cannot be held admissible in evidence.

(3.) A document, even if received by post, cannot be presumed to have been received from the Licensing Authority and cannot be believed to be a genuine document. The requirement of proving the said document was still there. I cannot agree with the decision in Jagmohan Singh's case [supra] in this regard. The insurance company could not be absolved of its liability to prove this report Ex. R2 and merely putting of exhibit on the same, would not prove it. In these circumstances, I do not find any fallacy in the reasoning of learned Tribunal where this evidence was rejected.