V.K. GUPTA, CJ.

(1.)The only ground of challenge in this appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned judgment and award dated 6.12.1999 passed in M.A.C. Case No. 51 of 1997 by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur is that the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident did not hold a valid driving licence.

(2.)The following 5 issues were framed by the Tribunal for adjudication:

(1) Whether deceased Dile Raj died in the accident of truck No. DL IG 0557 which was being driven rashly and negligently by truck driver, if so, its effect? OPP (2) If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled and from whom? OPP (3) Whether truck driver was not having valid driving licence, if so, its effect? OPR-2 (4) Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPR-2 (5) Relief.

(3.)Issue No. 3 alone is relevant for our purposes in this appeal because the question of validity of driving licence involved in this appeal is the subject-matter of this issue. Finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 3, onus whereof was on the appellant insurer is contained in para 8 of the impugned judgment and award. I have seen para 8 and find that the Tribunal has made a very pertinent observation to the effect that the appellant insurer did not lead any evidence to establish or prove the fact regarding the invalidity of the driving licence of the driver, except to produce three documents, being Exhs. R5 to R7 before the Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal's observation further is that these three documents have not been proved in any manner whatsoever and that in any case Exh. R7 is a wholly illegible photocopy of a so-called driving licence and that nothing can be made out from this illegible photocopy, apart from the fact that this has not been tendered in evidence appropriately nor has this document along with other two documents Exhs. R5 and R6 been proved in any manner.

(4.)I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. Undoubtedly, the onus of proving the contentious issue with respect to the validity of the driving licence squarely lay upon the appellant insurer and the only manner in which the appellant would discharge this onus was by adducing cogent evidence, establishing and proving before the Tribunal the fact that at the time of accident the driver did not hold a valid driving licence. Rather than doing that, or rather than producing cogent evidence on the subject, all that appellant did was to produce before the learned Tribunal through its counsel the aforesaid three documents which for unexplained reasons have been marked as Exhs. R5, R6 and R7 by the Tribunal. Exh. R5 actually is the copy of a letter dated 7.2.1998 written by one Ajay Kumar Jain whom the appellant insurer refers to as its surveyor. This document makes a very interesting reading. It requires to be reproduced verbatim:

"To

The Divisional Manager,

National Insurance Co. Ltd.

D.O.-22, Karol Bagh,

Delhi.

Dear Sir,

Re: Verification of driving licence

No. C-92060026 of Ashok Kumar s/o Madan Lal.

Your reference No.- Case titled Ganga

Devi v. Ashok Kumar.

In accordance to your instruction in

connection with the verification of driving

licence. From L.A., Delhi.

I had visited the office of L.A., Delhi on

4.2.1998 where my letter along with the

enclosures was handed over to licensing

clerk for their verification and verification

fee also deposited vide their receipt

No. 164694 dated 4.2.1998 and report

obtained which reveals that DL No.

C-92060026 was issued in June, 1992 in

the name of Ashok Kumar s/o Madan

Lal authorising him to drive HMV+M

cycle only and valid up to 31.5.1995 as

per authority record. The requisite written

consents as obtained from L.A., Mall

Road, Delhi, on my letter enclosed here

for your perusal and necessary action at

your end.

Thanking you."

(5.)Neither the author of this document Ajay Kumar Jain nor anyone from the Licensing Authority, Delhi has been produced as a witness. Actually, no witness at all was produced by the appellant in the Tribunal and the aforesaid document along with two other documents, Exhs. R6 and R7 have been mechanically produced in the Tribunal by the counsel for appellant To the similar effect is the document Exh R6 and as observed earlier document Exh R7 is the photocopy of a driving licence which has not been proved at all and in any manner, by any witness nor has any witness appeared in the Tribunal who might have deposed any fact about this document, apart from the fact that the document being a photocopy is by itself wholly illegible.

(6.)It is a cardinal, basic and established principle of evidence law that documents, other than public documents are tendered in evidence through witnesses who, after taking oath prove the documents appropriately as well as the contents of documents, by way of leading direct evidence. Actually documents are produced and proved through witnesses and their contents also established and proved either by way of primary evidence or secondary evidence but in any event the established and accepted mode of proving documents is by production of witnesses in the court who testify about the correctness, genuineness and authenticity of the documents as well as their contents, mostly through the medium of proving them as and by way of, primary evidence and in certain given situati ons through the medium of secondary evidence. The purpose of course is two fold: firstly, that such a witness appearing in the court is sworn and under oath testifies about a particular document, its genuineness and authenticity as well as its correctness; and secondly, once under oath and examination, this witness is subject to cross-examination by the opposite party so that the opposite party through the mechanism of cross-examination of such a witness can elicit appropriate information concerning the document itself with respect to its veracity, truthfulness, background, correctness, etc., etc. Enough indication of such requirement of law is found in section 62 of the Evidence Act which refers to the documents as 'primary evidence' and clearly suggests that such documents can be produced for the inspection of the court meaning thereby that through witnesses alone the documents have to be brought on record of the courts. Similarly, under section 63 of the Evidence Act,

"secondary evidence' has been defined an reading together these two sections, it can be safely said that the documents, either by way of 'primary evidence' or by way of 'secondary evidence' or otherwise have to be appropriately and properly proved by their production in the courts through witnesses alone."

(7.)There is only one exception to the aforesaid rule of evidence law with respect to proof of documents and that exception relates only to the proof of public documents by production of certified copies of such documents. Section 74 of Indian Evidence Act defines 'public documents' which include documents forming the acts or records of the acts of the sovereign authority and of the official bodies and Tribunals and also include documents from public officers, legislative, judicial as well as executive. Under section 76 of the Evidence Act every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, has a duty to give to such a person on demand a certified copy of such document. Under section 77 of the Evidence Act, the certified copies of public documents issued in the manner prescribed by section 76 may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents.

(8.)Surely and certainly documents Exhs. R5, R6 by no stretch of imagination can be termed as public documents. If at all the copy of the driving licence perhaps could be termed as a public document provided it were a certified copy issued in accordance with the procedure prescribed under section 76 of the Evidence Act but as has been seen above, Exh. R7, the illegible photocopy surely and certainly did not bear any endorsement on it that it was a certified copy of the original driving licence, prepared and issued in accordance with section 76 of Evidence Act. Whether in fact the original driving licence itself was a public document or not within the ambit of section 74 of the Evidence Act, is an issue which I am not deciding in this case. (9.)Viewed from any angle thus, based upon the aforesaid observations it becomes absolutely clear that Exhs. R5, R6 and R7 were private documents and yet appellant insurer did not take any steps in getting them proved and without their formal proof in the aforesaid manner, the Tribunal put exhibit marks on these documents thus giving an impression as if these documents had validly been proved and appropriately brought into evidence. It is only 'public documents' as defined in section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act of which perhaps no formal proof is required because the manner of proving the documents is itself indicated in sections 76 and 77 of Indian Evidence Act, as has been observed herein above.

(10.)At the risk of reiteration, I must hold that documents which are not 'public documents' cannot be allowed to be brought in evidence no

r can any reliance be placed upon them either by the court or any party unless they are appropriately and properly proved and brought into evidence through witnesses in accordance with well established principles of evidence law. (11.)Based on aforesaid observations, therefore, I must affirm Claims Tribunal's finding on issue No. 3 because, agreeing with the Tribunal's view, I must also hold myself that the aforesaid three documents were not at all proved in any manner with the consequence that the appellant totally failed to discharge its onus about the alleged invalidity of the driving licence. (12.)Appeal has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs. Whatever amount the appellant has deposited in this court shall be dis bursed to the claimants along with interest accrued thereupon till the date in terms of the award. (13.)Copies of this judgment shall be circulated to all the courts in Himachal Pradesh, including the Presiding Officers of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for their information.