The legal point established is that the mere exhibition of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof, and the party cannot be made to suffer for the negligence of counsel or the fault of the adjudicating authority.

JUDGMENT

Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J —This is rather an unusual case where the Commissioner under the Workmen''s Compensation Act has proceeded to award a sum of Rs. 6,41, 619/- as compensation to the respondent-workman by taking into consideration certain documents like copy of report Ex.P-1, copy of medical certificate for physical handicapped person Ex.P-2, copy of MLC Ex.P-3, copy of discharge slip Ex.P-4 and copy of Pariwar register Ex.P-5, which were not even legally proved and had in fact only been tendered by respondent No.1.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 filed a claim petition before the Commissioner on the allegations that he was employed as labourer with respondent No.2 and on 3.1.2002 at 12.00 noon while doing the assigned work, i.e. crate-wise work at Manikaran, Kullu, he sustained multiple injuries due to skid of feet. He was initially treated at Kullu thereafter at Chamba where Medical Officer opined that he had incurred 80% permanent disability.

3. When put to notice, appellant filed reply, wherein it raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, locus standi etc. On merits, the entire claim of the claimant was disputed.

4. As observed earlier, the claim petition filed by the claimant was allowed and aggrieved thereby the Insurance Company has filed the instant appeal, which was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the learned Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation has erred in relying upon the disability certificate which has not been proved and assessed the disability without assessing the loss of earning capacity?

2. Whether there was any relationship of employer and employee existing under the Workmen''s Compensation Act?

Substantial question of law No.1:

5. Admittedly, the award passed by the learned Commissioner is based upon certain exhibited documents as referred to above, but unfortunately, these documents have not been proved in accordance with law. Even though it is strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the claimant that the documents being exhibited no exception to the same can be taken.

6. However, it is more than settled that mere exhibition of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof nor mere marking of exhibit on a document dispense with its proof as the same is otherwise to be proved in accordance with law.

7. The mere fact that the document is exhibited does not follow that the Court stands precluded from examining the question on the basis of evidence led by the parties whether the document in question was exempted by the party by which it purports to be executed. This is all the more so where the execution of the document is challenged and the Court is clearly entitled to weigh the evidence led by the parties and decide whether the document was really executed by the party alleged to have executed the same.

8. As observed earlier, it is also more than settled that mere admission of document in evidence does not amount to its proof. In other words, mere marking of "exhibit or mark" on a document does not dispense with its proof, and the same is required to be proved in accordance with law. (Refer The Roman Catholic Mission Vs. State of Madras , (1966) AIR(Supreme Court) 1457; Marwari Khumhar & Others Vs. Bhagwanpuri Guru Ganeshpuri & Another , (2000) AIR(Supreme Court) 2629; R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple & Another , (2003) AIR(Supreme Court) 4548; Dayamathi Bai Vs. K.M. Shaffi , (2004) AIR(Supreme Court) 4082 and Life Insurance Corporation of India & Another Vs. Rampal Singh Bisen , (2010) 4 SCC 491) .

9. The mode and manner in which the learned Commissioner has conducted the proceedings is far from satisfactory. Even the mode and manner in which the counsel for the petitioner has conducted the case is also not at all satisfactory.

10. It is more than settled that a party cannot be made to suffer for the negligence of his counsel. (Ref: Rafiq vs Munshi