IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 803 of 1995 Date of decision: March 31, 2010 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .. Appellant Vs. Parkash Kaur and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Pardeep Bedi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajinder Prasher, Advocate with Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J The Insurance Company-respondent No.3 has preferred this appeal against the award dated 10.11.1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur, awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.1,43,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum in favour of the claimants and against the appellant as well as respondents No.1 and 2. The only issue raised by the Insurance Company in this case is that the Tribunal has not decided issue No.3 correctly because as per the memo dated 9.10.1994 (Ex.R-4) purported to have been addressed to Deepak Sood, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Chamba Ghat, District Solan reveals that the driving licence, copy of which is Ex.R-1 was fictitious, therefore, the company could not be held liable. Having scrutinized the record of the case, it transpires that the document Ex.R-4 is merely a memo purported to have been issued by the Licencing Authority but the same being not proved in accordance with law by the authority, who had issued it, is not admissible in evidence. Memorandum cannot be said to be a part of public record so as to make it admissible without proof. As such, in the absence of examination of any valid evidence, to prove the memo Ex.R-4, it cannot be said that the same F.A.O. No. 803 of 1995 -2- *** was issued by the Competent Authority. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly observed that in the absence of any positive evidence, the licence Ex.R-1 could not be said to be fictitious. No other point has been raised. Consequently, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. March 31, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge