Point of law : In all cases of secondary evidence under Section 65 read with Section 63 of Evidence Act when a copy or an oral account of a document is admitted as secondary evidence, the execution of the original is not required to be proved but if the original itself is sought to be tendered it must be duly proved and there is no reason for applying a different rule to public documents.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner as well as Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Dinesh Debnath, owner of the truck bearing No. AS-01-C-6739 challenging the judgment and order dated 27.11.2014 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bongaigaon in MAC Case No. 228/2009, awarding compensation of Rs. 2,88,000/- in favour of the claimant/respondent and directed the appellant to pay the awarded compensation.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 01.09.2009 at about 5.45 p.m. when the son of the claimants/respondents Bhumidahr Pathak was waiting for bus at Chapaguri on N.H. 31(C), at that time, one truck bearing No. AS-01-C-6739 coming in a rash and negligent manner knocked down the son of the claimant/respondents. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries on his person. Though he was taken to Lower Assam Hospital at Bongaigaon, but he died on the same day.

4. The facts of the accident was not denied in the appeal. The only contention raised in the present appeal is that the present appellant did not appear before the Tribunal and as such, the case was proceeded ex-parte against him and on the basis of the driving licence verification report dated 27.07.2012 produced by the Panel Investigator of the Insurance Company without summoning and examining the DTO, Bongaigaon, the Tribunal held that the driver was not in possession of Heavy Motor Vehicle (H.M.V) driving licence at the time of the accident and therefore, the judgment and order dated 27.11.2014 directing the appellant to pay the amount of compensation is not in conformity with law.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Tribunal had relied upon the driving licence verification report dated 27.07.2012 produced by the Insurance Investigator but the said report was not proved by the executant of the said report i.e. the DTO, Bongaigaon who was not examined to prove the said contention of the report and as such, the impugned judgment and order directing the appellant to make payment of the compensation awarded to the claimants is illegal. It is further argued that non-exhibition of documents is a procedural lapse. The claimants proved the accident due to rash and negligent manner by driver by oral and documentary evidence and the offending truck was insured with Insurance company and owned by the owner and therefore, the claimant is entitled to compensation and the Insurance company is liable to pay the said amount.

In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the following case laws (i) Vimla Devi and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Another reported in (2019) 2 SCC 186, (ii) Nirmala Kothari Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited reported in (2020) 4 SCC 49, (iii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297.

6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle was having driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) at the time of accident but the truck which he was driving on the date of accident was a Heavy Motor Vehicle (H.M.V). As such, the driver was not entitled to drive the Heavy Motor Vehicle as no such driving licence was issued to him to drive such vehicle. So the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the order holding that the appellant is liable to pay the compensation awarded as Insurance Company has no such liability as the act of the driver is against the policy of the vehicle.

The learned counsel referred the following case law in support of his submissions- Jagdish Kumar Sood Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and Others reported in (2018) 3 SCC 697.

In the aforesaid case, the definition of Light Motor Vehicle and transport vehicle etc., has been prescribed.

7. Coming to the case in hand and in respect of the evidence addu