Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Nanhi @ Nanni & Ors on 31 October, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision : 31st October, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 374/2010
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Amit Gaur, Advocate
versus
NANHI @ NANNI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant Oriental Insurance Company Limited impugns a judgment
dated 8.3.2010 passed by the Motor Accident, Claims Tribunal whereby
while awarding a compensation of Rs.1,61,650/- in favour of the first
Respondent, the Appellant's plea of breach of terms and conditions of the
policy on the part of the Respondent M/s. Khosla Printers, owner of the
offending vehicle, was rejected.
2. In order to prove the breach, the Appellant Insurance Company relies on
a report dated 17.2.2010 Ex.R3W1/C-A purported to have been issued by
the office of Motor Licencing Officer (North-East Zone), Delhi-94. The
report is extracted hereunder:
"To
Sh.Naresh Singh, ASI,
PS Gokal Puri,
Delhi.
Subject: Regarding verification of D/L no.90060781.
As per your letter received by hand on dated 17-02-2009 (04
PM). It is hereby stated that the above mentioned driving
license number is not found in the bunch of driving license
records of dated 12-01-1995, which is produced by the record
keeper, as per photocopy of driving license, provided by you."
3. The Appellant Insurance Company sought to prove this report through
Pradeep Kaushik, its Administrative Officer, who was examined as
R3W1. He was not conversant with the signatures of the official/officer
who purported to sign the said report, therefore, he could not prove this
report. In this connection, a reference may be made to a judgment of this
Court in State (Delhi Administration) v. Brij Mohan, 27 (1985) DLT 322
where it was held as under:-
"(8) Section 61 of the Evidence Act lays down that the contents
of a document may be proved either by primary or by
secondary evidence. Section 62 thereof defines primary
evidence as meaning the document itself produced for the
inspection of the court. In other words, the primary
documentary evidence of a transaction (evidenced by writing)
is the document itself which should be produced in original to
prove the terms of the contract/ transaction, if it exists and is
obtainable. Since the original sanction was admittedly placed
on record by the prosecution, the requirements of this provision
stood satisfied and the question of any secondary evidence for
proving the contents of the sanction as such did not arise.
Primary evidence in the context of oral evidence, however,
means an oral account of the original evidence i.e. of a person
who saw what happened and gives an account of it recorded by
the court. That question does not appear to have arisen in the
instant case because the matter was still at the stage of proof of
the consent accorded by the Secretary (Medical). Since Sections
61 to 66 of the Evidence Act deal with the mode of proving the
contents of the documents, either by primary evidence or by
secondary evidence, I need not dwell upon the same in view of
the original document having been placed on the record.
(9) Then comes the most important question viz. the
genuineness of a document produced in evidence i.e. is a
document what it purports to be and this is dealt with in
Sections 67 to 73 of the Evidence Act. Section 67 refers to
documents other than documents required by law to be attested.
It simply requires that the signature of the person alleged to
have signed a document (i.e. the executant) must be proved by
evidence that the signature purporting to that of the executant
is in his handwriting. Further it requires that if the body of the
document purports to be in the hand-writing of someone, it
must be proved to be in the hand-writing of that person.
However, Section 67 does not in terms prescribe any particular
mode of proof and any recognised mode of proof which satisfies
the Judge will do. Thus, the execution/ authorship of a
document may be proved by direct evidence i e. by the writer or
a person who saw the document written and signed or by
circumstantial evidence which may be of various kinds, for
example, by an expert or by the opinion of a non-expert who is
acquainted with the hand-writing in any of the ways mentioned
in Explanation to Section 47 or even by comparison etc. (See
Sections 45, 47, 73 & 90 of the Evidence Act)......"
4. Even if the report is accepted on its face value, it does not say that licence
No.P-90060781 held by the driver-Respondent Uday Kant Jha was not
issued by the concerned MLO. The report simply says that the licence
was not found in the bunch of the driving licence record dated 12.1.1995
produced by the record keeper. This was not sufficient to prove that the
licence was not genuine.
5. The Appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is, accordingly,
dismissed.
6. The statutory deposit of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the Appellant
Insurance Company.
7. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 31, 2012
sv
