1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has sought for leave of this Court for deletion of Article 226 from the provision of Law under which, this writ petition has been filed.

2. In view of such submission, learned counsel for the petitioner, is directed to make necessary correction in provision of Law, in course of the day.

3. This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 09.04.2019 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.100 of 2012, is under challenge, whereby and whereunder, the petition dated 04.04.2012 praying therein to mark exhibit the document filed as per the list dated 04.04.2019 and further to mark exhibit paper cutting of Hindi Daily Newspaper “Prabhat Khabar” dated 09.01.2011 filed on behalf of the applicant, has been rejected.

4. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in this writ petition is that a compensation case being Compensation Case No.100 of 2012 has been filed by one Basanti Tirkey against M/s United Engineering Works, the petitioner herein before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi through a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, a claim for compensation of Rs.51,10,000/- was made as it was alleged that the said Pradeep Kumar Tirkey, the husband of the Basanti Tirkey riding his motorcycle bearing registration no.JH 01AB 1504 on 07.01.2011 at about 7.30 in the morning got dashed by a truck bearing registration no.BR 14G 1504 (Truck 709) and ultimately succumbed to injury.

The petitioner has been impleaded as opposite party no.1 in the said execution case, an FIR was also instituted before the Jagarnathpur police station being P.S. Case No.04/2011, corresponding to G.R. No.145/2011 registered against the driver of the offending truck and the police have submitted charge-sheet after investigation.

The petitioner, opposite party no.1 before the tribunal has filed written statement denying the involvement of the said truck in the said accident.

The criminal case ultimately, although has been resulted into acquittal on the ground that the witnesses have deposed therein that they have not seen the accused.

The petitioner has filed a petition on 04.04.2019 (annexure-5) praying therein to mark the information submitted before the concerned police station dated 11.01.2011 with respect to non-involvement of the vehicle as also the paper cutting as exhibited.

5. Rejoinder to the said petition has been filed by the claimant inter-alia taking the plea therein that after institution of the FIR before the Jagarnathpur Police Station against the driver of the vehicle in question against which, the charge-sheet has also been submitted and for release of the said vehicle, a petition was filed on 21.01.2011 which was released in favour of the opposite party on 31.01.2011 but no reference of information dated 31.01.2011 was taken therein and further no evidence ever has been produced for taking point of non-involvement of the vehicle.

Further on the ground that there is no endorsement on receipt of the information letter dated 11.01.2011 by any of the authority of the concerned police station and as such it cannot be marked as exhibit.

Upon such contention raised by the parties, the claim tribunal has passed order, rejecting the aforesaid petition against which, the present writ petition has been filed.

Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to provision of Section 3 of the Evidence Act, wherein the definition of evidence has been stipulated which means and includes all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters to fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence and therefore, the documents even if or the document needs to be adjudicated, even if no endorsement of any of the authority of the concerned police station cannot be treated to be not a evidence within the meaning of definition of evidence as stip