CHANDRAWALI Vs. BALWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter here concerns the liability of the Insurance Company, namely; the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited for payment of compensation to the widow and children of Attar Singh deceased who was killed while driving his motor-cycle when it was involved in an accident with the Matador H.R.M. 1808. This happened on July 13, 1982, on the Narnaul-Mohindergarh Road. The Tribunal, after holding that the accident had been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the Matador awarded a sum of Rs. 91,200/- as compensation to the claimants.

(2.) THE claimants, in their appeal, seek enhanced compensation while in the other appeal by the Insurance Company, the challenge is to its liability for payment of the compensation awarded to the claimants.

(3.) WITH respect, this view, in so far as it tends to imply that a copy of a document, not otherwise inadmissible even though exhibited without objection, must be treated to be inadmissible unless the provisions of Sections 65 and 66 of the Evidence Act have been complied with, requires reconsideration. As held by the Division Bench of the High Court of Lahore in Docar Mal and Ors. v. Sunam Ram and Ors. AIR (31) 1944 Lahore 58, the mode of proof of a document is a question of procedure and is capable of being waived and when objection as to the manner of proof of a document is not taken at the time when the document is sought to be proved in the lower court, it is too late to raise it for the first time in Second Appeal. The Privy Council in Gopal Das and Anr. v. Sri Thakurji and Ors. AIR (30) 1943 Privy Council 83, also held that objection as to the mode of proof of a document must be taken before it is marked as an exhibit and admitted on record and not for the first time in appeal. Similar views have also been expressed in U Po Kin and Anr. v. U So Gale AIR 1936 Rangoon 277 and Umar-ud-Din v. Ghulam Mohammad and Anr. AIR 1935 Lahore 628.