Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mulayam Bai And Ors. on 3 August, 1998
8. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that insurance company failed to examine Road Transport Authority who had issued the original driving licence in the year 1984 and, therefore, the contention of the respondents cannot be accepted. The learned Counsel for the appellants does not dispute the fact that the licensing authority itself has made an endorsement in Exh. D1 to the effect that no such licence was issued nor it exists in the record of the Licensing Authority and, therefore, such certificate is admissible in evidence as a public document under Section 74 (1) (iii) of the Evidence Act. Learned Counsel for the insurance company drew my attention to the decision of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mulayam Bai , in which it has been held that the certificate is the record of the act done by the public officer, who has found, after examining itself its own record that the licence does not exist. This can be proved by producing the original certificate in the court. This Court has held that the certificate issued by licensing authority is a public document and admissible in evidence without examining someone from the authority.