The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of public documents and certified copies under the Evidence Act, the application of maxim res ipsa loquitur to establish negligence, and the Tribunal's discretion in determining the quantum of compensation.

H. R. PANWAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 11th Feb. , 1994 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bail in M. A. C. T. Case No. 80/92 whereby an award of Rs. 63,000/- along with interest from the date of application was passed in favour of the respondent claimants Nos. 1 to 6 (hereinafter referred for short "claimants") and against the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") and its driver respondent No. 7.

( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid judgment and award impugned the Corporation filed this Misc. Appeal before this Court.

( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are thus that the claimants filed a claims petition, claiming compensation under various heads in all for a sum of Rs. 3,36,600/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred for short "the Act" ).

( 4 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that Tribunal fell in error in holding that the driver of the offending bus was negligent in causing accident. He contended that no eye-witness of occurrence has been produced by the claimants and, therefore, according to him claimants failed to prove issue of negligency.

( 5 ) I have scrutinised and evaluated the evidence on record. The claimants placed on record the First Information Report Exs. 5 and 6. Undisputedly the crime report Ex. 5 of the said accident was lodged promptly with the concerned police station with brief narration as to how accident had taken place. Ex. 9 is prepared by the Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station, Sadari, who investigated the crime case registered in respect of the accident. Though, Exs. 5, 6 and 9 were tendered in evidence by the claimants without there being any objection raised against the marking/exhibiting documents from the other side, F. I. R. , Site-map and Site Inspection Memo were prepared by the police officer while investigating into the offence disclosed in F. I. R. The Police Officer is a public servant and the Site inspection Map and Site Inspection Memo are records made in discharge of his Official duties, and entries in such record are relevant facts under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act and as such those documents are public documents as these are prepared by public servant while discharging his official duties and as such admissible in evidence.

( 6 ) IT has been observed in Zeenath Tej v. Prince of Wales Medical College, Patna, AIR 1971 Patna 43 at p. 48, para 7, as follows :-"there is a presumption that every person whether in his private or official character does his duty and unless the contrary is proved, it is presumed that all things are rightly and regularly done. This presumption applies with greater force to official acts. "

( 7 ) ACCORDING to Section 74, Evidence Act, documents forming acts or records of the acts of public officers are public documents. Section 77 of the Evidence Act provides that the contents of public documents may be proved by producing their certified copies. In Madamanchi Ramappa v. Muthaluru Bojjappa, AIR 1963 SC 1633, it has been observed by the Honble Supreme Court that if a document is certified copy of public document. It need not be proved by calling a witness.

( 8 ) THUS, it is well settled that strict provisions of Evidence Act are not to be insisted by the Tribunal on limited Jurisdiction. The Tribunals while dealing the cases for compensation arising out of Motor Vehicle accident are to follow such summary procedure as it thought fit and the certified copy of the F. I. R. , Inspection Map and Site Inspection Memo, Panch Nama, Injury Report or the Post Mortem Report, as the case may be, and, other relevant documents prepared by the police or the doctor while discharging official duty are admissible in evidence without there being a formal proof.

( 9 ) IN Union of India v. T. R. Verma, AIR 1957 SC 882, Honble Supreme Court