The admissibility of secondary evidence and the application of a summary procedure under sec. 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in inquiries held by domestic tribunals.

M. M. Kumar, J.

1. This revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge order dated 6.2.2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (forbrevity, the Tribunal), allowing the applcation of insurance company respondent no.4 to prove entry dated 29.4.1993 in the register of District Transport Office, amritsar (for brevity, the DTO), by leading secondary evidence in the form of verification report and to prove that the driving licence No.1604 dated 29.4.1993 was not issued by licensing authority.

2. Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of the present revision petition and necessary to decide the issue raised are that a claim petition under sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , being m. A. C. T. No.149 of 3.11.1998 has been filed by the claimant-respondent Nos.1 to 3 against the driver-petitioner, owner of the truck and the insurance company respondent No.4, claiming compensation on account of death of one Narinder Kumar. In the accident wife of Narinder Kumar, his daughter and son also suffered injuries. They also filed their claim in lieu of the injuries suffered by them. The petitioner who is driver of truck No. DL 1l-B 3619 alleged to have caused accident because of his rash and negligent driving. The insurance company respondent No.4 has taken the stand that the driver petitioner was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident and an issue has been framed as to whether driving licence relied upon by the driver petitioner was fake. When the evidence of the insurance company, respondent No.4, was in progress it got issued a certificate from the office of district Transport Officer, Amritsar, certifying that licence No.1604 dated 29.4.93 was not issued by that licensing authority. A witness Harvinder Kaur who is said to have issued the certificate denied her signature and handwriting on that certificate. After the statement of Harvinder Kaur was recorded on 27.9.2001, insurance company respondent No.4 filed an application submitting that it should be permitted to lead secondary evidence concerning entry dated 29.4.1992 made in the register of the DTO, Amritsar on the ground that the original register regarding the entry dated 29.4.1993 was destroyed in a bomb blast which took place in the office of DTO, amritsar. The Tribunal after affording portunity to parties allowed the application by recording the following order:

"after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, the court is of the considered (Sic.) is proved to have been destroyed/lost in the bomb blast by the statements of the concerned officials working in the office of District Transport Officer, amritsar. Prima facie, a good case is made out for granting of permission to lead secondary evidence because it is the applicant insurance company who is to be fastened with the liability to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants if claim applications are accepted and if the insurance company proves that the driving licence was fake, it can have legitimate legal remedy to recover the said amount from the owner of alleged offending vehicle. Accordingly, the application of respondent no.3 insurance company under consideration is accepted and secondary evidence as prayed for in the application is allowed to be led. "

3. Mr. P. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the driver petitioner has assailed this order by arguing that no secondary evidence could be allowed once the signatures have been denied by the clerk Harvinder Kaur, whose statement has been recorded on 27.9.2001. According to the learned counsel, such a procedure is opposed to the provisions of sections 65 and 66 of the indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity, the Act ). He has further argued that the court would be competent to consider the evidentiary value of the entry dated 29.4.93 by evaluating the same in the light of the statement made by Harvinder Kaur, clerk but no secondary evidence could be