By the Court.—This first appeal from order is directed against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding compensation Rs.11,83,556/- along with 6% interest by award dated 31.7.2008. The facts in brief are that on 18.8.2004 at about 11 A.M., Truck No. MP-17C/5217 hit the Scooter No. UP-53/3663 from behind. In the accident Sri Jauhari Lal Kesarwani was seriously injured and he died due to injuries received in the accident. He was working as Accountant in District Urban Development Authority (DUDA), Allahabad and drawing monthly salary of Rs.11,289. The claimants being widow, children and father of the deceased, filed M.A.C.P. No. 583 of 2004 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in brief the Act) claiming Rs. 20 lacs compensation along with interest. The claim petition was contested by the appellant on the ground that though the offending Truck No. MP-17C/5217 was insured by the appellant but the driver was not having a valid driving licence. The appellant filed an application under Section 170 of the Act. It was rejected by the tribunal on 2.9.2006. The tribunal recorded the finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Truck No. MP-17C/5217. Further, the vehicle was insured by the appellant and the driver of the vehicle had a valid driving licence.

2. We have heard Sri V.K. Birla, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that at the time of the accident, the driver was not having a valid driving licence as per the certificate issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Raipur (Chhatisgarh). He urged that it was proved that the driving licence No. S-7118-R.P.R.-96 was not issued in the name of driver Sant Lal Soni. He relied on the letter/certificate issued by Regional Transport Officer dated 20.4.2005. The learned counsel submitted that the letter/certificate was issued after deposit of fee as required under Rule 150(2) of the rules, therefore, the letter/certificate is a public document and in view of Section 74 to 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in brief the Evidence Act) it required no proof. He further urged that since the driving licence filed before the tribunal was fake and the truck being driven by an unlicensed driver in breach of insurance policy, the appellant would not be liable to pay compensation. He lastly, urged that the appellant could challenge in this appeal the order of the tribunal rejecting the application under Section 170 of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the award of the tribunal.

3. The questions that arise for consideration in this appeal are whether the letter/certificate issued by Regional Transport Officer, Raipur (Chhatisgarh) can be considered to be a public document as defined in Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which required no proof or it was required to be proved by the person producing it before the tribunal by examining witnesses; whether under Rule 150(2) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 insurance company can also receive information in Form-54; whether in appeal under Section 173(1) an order passed under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be challenged?

4. Any person having right to inspect a public document can under Section 76 of the Evidence Act obtain certified copy of such document. A certified copy of a public document is admissible without further proof under Section 77 of the Evidence Act. The Evidence Act as such does not apply to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. But it is well settled that any tribunal which follows its own procedure applies principles of Evidence Act. The Act has made provisions for issuance of information regarding a motor vehicle involved in the accident by the registering authority. Section 160 of the Act reads as under :

“160. Duty to furnish particulars of vehicle involved in accident.— A registering authority