Failure to timely object to the mode of proving admissible documents waives subsequent evidentiary challenge.

On 28.01.2004 at approximately 3:20 a.m., Narayan Nandi was standing beside his mini-truck at Lalmati on NH-37 when truck No. AS-01/C-7335 allegedly driven rashly and negligently struck him, causing grievous injuries to both legs.

He underwent prolonged treatment at Gauhati Medical College and Hospital and was subsequently certified as having 60% orthopaedic disability.

He filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, initially registered as MAC Case No. 830/04 and later renumbered as MAC Case No. 329/06.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held the truck driver negligent and awarded ₹4,06,000, comprising ₹3,24,000 for compensation, ₹67,559 for medical expenses, ₹10,000 for diet and nutrition, and ₹4,400 for transportation, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing until payment.

The insurer appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that the disability certificate and physically handicapped identity card, marked Exhibits 2 and 3, had not been formally proved.

Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was justified in relying upon the disability certificate and physically handicapped identity card marked as Exhibits 2 and 3, despite the insurer’s objection that they were not formally proved.

Whether the Tribunal’s award of ₹4,06,000, with interest at 6% per annum, warranted interference in appeal.

The appeal was governed by Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which permits an appeal against an award of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The Court applied the evidentiary principle stated in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaaraswami & V.P. Temple, (2003) 8 SCC 752, that an objection to the intrinsic admissibility of a document may be raised at a later stage, including in appeal, but an objection directed only to the mode or sufficiency of proof must be raised when the document is tendered; failure to do so, after the document has been admitted and marked as an exhibit, amounts to waiver of formal proof.

The Court further relied on the principle that unchallenged documentary evidence may be acted upon where the opposing party had the opportunity to dispute it in cross-examination.

Exhibits 2 and 3 were the claimant’s disability certificate and Government-issued identity card, respectively, both recording 60% orthopaedic disability.

Although the insurer challenged their proof in appeal, it had not disputed or challenged those documents during the claimant’s cross-examination and had adduced no evidence of its own.

Applying Venkatachala Gounder, the Court treated the objection as one concerning the mode of proof rather than the intrinsic inadmissibility of the documents.

Since the insurer failed to object at the appropriate stage, it could not subsequently contend that formal proof was lacking.

The Tribunal was therefore justified in relying on the documents to assess the claimant’s disability and compensation, and no error or infirmity was established in the award.

It directed that, if not already deposited, the insurer must deposit the awarded amount before the Tribunal together with applicable interest within six weeks.

The statutory deposit of ₹25,000 was directed to be returned upon proof that the entire awarded amount had been deposited before the Tribunal or paid to the claimant.

The lower-court records were ordered to be returned.