IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 31 of 2006 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. … Appellant Versus Smt. Kiran Prabha & others … Respondents Sri Chhatrapati Pant, Advocate, holding brief of Sri T.A. Khan, Advocate for appellant Sri P.C. Bisht, Advocate for respondent nos. 5 & 7 Dated: August 7, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment and award dated 22.5.2005 passed by MACT, Uttarkashi, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 7 of 1996, Smt. Kiran Prabha & others vs. Michar Sen Negi & others. Brief facts of the case giving rise to case are that on 30.10.1992, Brij Mohan Sharma (deceased) was going by Gypsy No. DL-3C-B-8602 with his friend Michar Sen Negi. At about 10.00 p.m., when the said Gypsy reached near a Nursery and after going some 35-meter ahead due to rash and negligent driving, it fell down into a ditch in Mori Motor Marg, District Uttarkashi and as a result of which Brij Mohan Sharma died. Post mortem of deceased was conducted in District Hospital, Uttarkashi and F.I.R. was lodged by Dharam Singh Patwari Chaprasi of Moro on 31.10.1992. At about 5.30 a.m. at P.S. Mori Panchayatnama was also prepared. The said Gypsy was insured with The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. at the time of accident. 2 The claimants claimed a sum of Rs.13,56,000/- as compensation against the opposite parties. Opposite parties filed their written statement denying their liability to pay the compensation. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Parties led evidence in support of their cases. The learned Tribunal after having considered the entire material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.3,84,000/-, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition, in favour of claimants, against the opposite parties no. 1 and 3 jointly and severally, vide its judgment and award dated 20.3.2002. Against the said award dated 20.3.2002, opposite parties no. 1 and 3 filed an appeal before this Court and this Court vide judgment and order dated 03.03.2005 allowed the appeal to the extent that liability between the insured and insurer shall be determined by the MACT concerned after taking into account the driving licence filed at the stage of appeal and rest of the finding pertaining to quantum was confirmed. After remand, the learned Tribunal considered the driving licence of driver (paper no. 182C/1 to 182C/4) and found that the driving licence was valid at the time of accident and accordingly held the insurer liable to pay the amount of compensation. The Tribunal also directed that if legally the owner/driver are found liable, the 3 insurance company would be at liberty to take appropriate action against them. Feeling aggrieved, the insurance company has preferred this appeal before this Court. Heard Sri Chhatrapati Pant, holding brief of Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for appellant, Sri P.C. Bisht, learned counsel for respondents no. 5 & 7 and perused the record. Learned counsel for appellant-insurance company has submitted that photo copy of driving licence was produced before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal without obtaining any details about driving licence from the R.T.O. concerned and in absence of certified copy of the said driving licence, wrongly believed the driving licence to be a genuine document. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award dated 22.5.2005 is liable to be set aside on this sole ground pertaining to liability of insurance company. After having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the material available on record, I do not find any substance in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. The proceedings before the Tribunal are summary in nature and parties are not required to prove the photo copies filed by them to be proved by adopting lengthy procedure. The driving licence was filed before this Court at the appellate stage which was taken on record and the Tribunal was directed to take into account the said driving licence and to 4 decide the liability between the insured and insurer. If the driving licence was not a genuine document and was fake, it was opened to the insurer to produce reliable evidence in this regard before the Tribunal, but it has not been done. The photo copy of driving licence is a public document and reliance can very well be placed on this public document. One thing is clear that the driving licence was renewed w.e.f. 9.11.1990 to 9.11.1993 and accident had occurred on 30.10.1992. Therefore, the photo copy of the driving licence brought on record cannot be said to be an unreliable piece of evidence. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability upon the insurer of vehicle to pay the amount of compensation. For the reasons stated above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 22.5.2005 is hereby confirmed. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant-insurance company with this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP