A certificate from a Regional Transport Office, without the appearance of the person who issued it and the document, is not admissible as evidence under section 35 of the Evidence Act.

R.P. Gupta, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 31st August, 1995, of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Seoni, whereby a sum of Rs. 59,700/- was awarded to respondent No. 1, claimant, whose house and other property inside the house was damaged by the insured vehicle namely Truck No. MPJ 3652 driven by one Bhuvanlal, respondent No. 2. The truck belongs to Rajendra Chourasia, respondent No. 3. The award has been passed against the Insurance Company, the Driver as well as the owner of the truck.

2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 1 that the appeal is barred by time and there is no good reason to condone the delay. The appeal is said to have been delayed by 19 days over and above the allowable period of 90 days. The award in this case was passed on 30-8-1995 and the appeal was filed on 18th December, 1995. If we count from the date of award, limitation period of 90 days would expire on 29th November, 1995. The plea taken by the appellant in application for condonation of delay is that he did not get copy of award from the tribunal as was required, that the tribunal did not give a copy of the award to the company as was required by section 168(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The provision requires that tribunal shall give copy of award to the parties, while announcing the award. The copy was given only on 19th December. An affidavit to that effect has been filed by an official of Company.

3. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 argues that the appellant should have obtained the copy and that copy must have been taken on 30th August and there is no proof that it was taken on 19th September, 1995. No acknowledgment of receipt of copy, has been got proved, according to his argument.

4. After giving my attention to the respective contention and going through the certified copy of the award placed on record, it appears that it does not bear any date as to when the copy was prepared. Apart from this, there is a copy of memo of costs also filed which shows that application was moved on 15th December, 1995 and the appellant was asked to appear on 20th December, 1995. But further it shows that the copy was delivered on 15th December itself. Whatever be the connotation of such entries regarding dates, it appears clear that such a memo was not supplied at least on the date of award and it does not show when the original copy was prepared. Of course, memo of costs is not an essential part of the award but it depicts how the office of the Tribunal has been working regarding the delivery of copies. Under these circumstances, the contention of the appellant that copy was not delivered to them as per section 168(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, on the date of the award, cannot be ignored. I find sufficient reasons to condone the delay as it is not sure whether the appeal was at all time barred. So that objection is overruled.

5. The only point mooted at the bar regarding merits of the claim is that the driver Bhuvanlal did not have a valid licence to drive the vehicle and the liability of the Insurance Company could arise only if he had a valid driving licence. The Tribunal has held that it is not proved that the licence of the driver produced before the Tribunal was forged. There is no dispute that this driving licence was renewed by R.T.O., Seoni, M.P., for a period upto 17-9-1995. The Tribunal noted that the Insurance Company has produced a certificate from R.T.O., Jaipur that no driving licence had been issued in favour of Bhuvanlal. That certificate was produced in Court. The claimant had objected that it was not properly proved and it did not prove its contents as nobody from R.T.O., Jaipur, had been examined or called as a witness.

6. The mere certificate purporting to be obtained from some Regional Transport Office is not a public document under section 35 of Evidence Act. Such certificate is not issued under any statutory rules nor is required to be so issued. So it does not pro