BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J.

( 1 ) THIS applicationunder Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of an applicant under section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and is directed against the order No. 26 dated 8. 1. 2004 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, 2nd Court, Burdwan in M. A. C. Case No. 65/376 of 2002 thereby rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for marking three different documents as exhibits without calling any witness to prove those documents.

( 2 ) IN the said proceedings under the act, the petitioner filed an application on 24. 5. 2004 praying for admitting a 'disablement certificate' issued by the Department of Orthopaedic, R. G. Kar Medical College and Hospital, Calcutta, a 'discharge certificate' issued by Durgapur Steel Plant hospital and a 'medical bill' issued by durgapur Steel Authority of India without calling any witness. According to the petitioner, those documents were public documents and as such, those could be marked as exhibits without proving those documents in accordance with Evidence act.

( 3 ) THE learned Tribunal by the order impugned has rejected such application.

( 4 ) BEING dissatisfied, the petitioner has come up with the present application under article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Banik, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has made twofold submission before this court.

( 5 ) FIRST, he has contended that those documents are public documents within the meaning of Evidence Act and as such those can be admitted in evidence without calling any witness for the purpose of proving those documents. Secondly, Mr. Banik contends that in proceedings under the Act, the provisions of Evidence Act are not strictly applicable and as such, the learned Tribunal below ought not to have rejected the prayer and should have marked those documents as exhibits. Mr. Banik submits that those documents were issued by respective Government authorities and as such, there was no reason to disbelieve the contents thereof. He, thus, prays for setting aside the order impugned.

( 6 ) THEREFORE, the first point that arises for consideration in this application is, whether those three documents mentioned above are public documents within the meaning of Evidence Act.

( 7 ) ACCORDING to section 74 of Evidence act, the following documents are public documents:" (1) documents forming the acts, or records of the acts (i) of the sovereign authority; (ii) of official bodies and Tribunals; and (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of any part of India or of the Commonwealth, or of a foreign country; (2) public records kept in any State of private documents.

( 8 ) IT appears that out of those three documents, 'discharge certificate' issued by Durgapur Steel Plant Hospital and the 'medical bill' given by Durgapur Steel authority of India are neither documents forming the acts or record of the acts of the sovereign authority or of official bodies and Tribunals or of any public officers, legislative, judicial or executive of any part of India or Commonwealth or foreign countries, nor are those documents kept in the State as record of private documents. Therefore, those two documents are not public documents within the meaning of section 74 of the Evidence Act and the petitioner cannot get the benefit of that section.

( 9 ) SO far as the disablement certificate purportedly issued by the medical board of R. G. Kar Government Hospital is concerned, the petitioner did not pray for the production of the certified copy of such document but wanted to mark the original as exhibit without proving its genuineness. According to the petitioner the court should not only accept the said document as a genuine one but also should rely upon its contents without examining the doctors who allegedly issued such certificate.

( 10 ) ACCORDING to section 77 of the evidence Act, if any document is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document