JASBIR KAUR Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by Jasbir Kaur, owner of the offending vehicle No. HRA 9998, is directed against award dated 24.11.1993 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), whereby, Om Parkash, respondent-injured was awarded a total compensation of Rs. 50,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of realization. Further the liability to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation was fastened upon the driver-respondent No. 2 and the appellant-Jasbir Singh, owner of the said offending vehicle. Respondent No. 4-National Insurance Company Limited, with which the offending vehicle was duly insured, was absolved from its liability, to pay the amount of compensation on the ground that Raghbir Singh, driver, was not found to have a valid driving licence on the day of occurrence of the accident, which had admittedly taken place on May 31, 1989.

(2.) THE only point of argument, raised on behalf of the appellant-owner of the offending vehicle, is that the learned Tribunal has committed a grave error by relying upon the report, Ex. R-3, which indicates that the driving licence (Mark-A) of Raghbir Singh, driver, was not issued by the Licensing Authority, Hyderabad. In that behalf, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that a simple report (Ex. R-3) placed on the file by the Insurer cannot be read into evidence inasmuch as, the same has not been proved by examining a witness from the office of the Licensing Authority, Hyderabad. It was then also contended that simply by marking an Exhibit on a report does not dispense with the mode of proof of the document. In support of her this aforesaid points of arguments, reliance was also placed on the following catena of authorities :-

(3.) I have given my holistic view to the aforesaid rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the above cited rulings and find no force in the aforesaid plea raised on behalf of respondent No. 4, i.e. National Insurance Company Limited, inasmuch as the report Ex. R-3, relied upon by the Insurer, cannot be said to have been proved in the eyes of law. In fact, in order to prove the said report, it was incumbent upon the Insurer to summon the concerned official, with relevant records, from the office of the Licensing Authority, Hyderabad. Simply, by placing and marking of the exhibit on the file does not dispense with the proof of the document. In this regard, paragraph 7 of the judgment rendered in Santosh and others' case (supra) is relevant, which is reproduced below :-