Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties on appeal.
(2.) The questions raised in this appeal are that the appellant produced a report from the competent authority i.e. the District Transport Officer, Hyderabad through their Investigator K. Bhaskar and placed on record as Ex. A/4 along with the letter of the Investigator Ex.A/3 evidencing that the driving licence relied upon by the driver of the vehicle and owner of the vehicle was never issued by the office at Hyderabad from where it is claimed to have been issued. Despite these facts, the Tribunal held that the appellant Company is liable to pay the compensation amount.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted in all fairness that the appellant Company appointed an Investigator to find out whether the licence was issued by the Competent Authority who submitted an application before the Competent Authority and he obtained report from said authority and produced the report before the Tribunal. The report given by the Additional Licensing Authority, RTA, Hyderabad dated 22.4.1997 is a public document and there was no reason for not believing this public document. The Trial Court rejected the public document because of non-production of appellant's Investigator K. Bhaskar. Learned counsel for the appellant referred Sections 74 and 76 read with Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act. In support of his contention the original documents of the public documents are not required and public document can be proved by producing the certified copies of the said documents.;