A copy of an insurance policy produced by the insurer is admissible in evidence without formal proof, and the insurer is not required to produce the original insurance policy or prove the same in accordance with law to avoid the presumption of unlimited liability.

The only question involved in these Letters Patent Appeals is, whether a copy of Insurance Policy produced by the insurer along with the returns could be excluded from consideration by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) while determining the extent of liability on the ground that it had not laid the foundation for reception of secondary evidence in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act? This question has arisen because the Tribunal excluded attested copy of Insurance Policy produced by the insurer on the ground that there was non-compliance of Order 11, Rules 12 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 65(a) of the Evidence Act.

The 1st appellate Court reversed this finding and answered the question as follows :-

"In the present case, it goes without saying that appellant-company had pleaded its limited liability and had discharged its obligation of placing a copy of Insurance Police on record. No objection was raised casting any cloud on the genuineness, existence 0r admissibility of the copy. Therefore, it was not for the Company to make out a case for production of secondary evidence and to prove the contents of copy. Nor could the copy be excluded from consideration on that count."

2. The judgment is assailed by the insured on the ground that, it runs counter to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Savitri Kamal (CIMA No. 57 of 1989 decided on 13-12-1990) and also against the law because a duplicate copy of a document cannot be admitted in evidence without following the provisions of the Evidence Act.

3. The contention of Mr. Wazir, appearing for the appellants is that the learned Single Judge could not have ignored the judgment of a larger Bench of this court. He also argued that the facts of case decided by the Supreme Court and relied by him are distinguishable.

Mr. Choudhary, appearing for the respondents, however, supports the judgment on the ground that it is in accord with the law laid down by the Apex Court.

4. First of till we may notice the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Savitri Kamals case (s.upra), where it has been observed as follows :-

The fact remains that the original Insurance Policy has not been produced before the Tribunal and there is nothing to show the extent of liability that the Company had incurred while covering the risk of the vehicle. The production of the Carbon copy of the schedule by the Insurance Company can at best be seen as an attempt to produce the Secondary evidence of the policy of Insurance. But even for that no foundation had been laid by the Company before the Tribunal for the reception of said secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act.

The learned counsel for the respondents has cited before us three judgments reported in AIR 1984 Punj & Har 223 : (1988) 2 Ace CC 467 and AIR 1989 Punj & Har 300 on the point of that where the Insurance Company fails to produce the Insurance Policy or prove the same in accordance with law, then it shall have to be presumed that the liability of the Insurance Company is unlimited."

This observation is, however, directly opposite to the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore, 1988 Ace CJ 270: (AIR 1988 SC 719), but before it is noticed, a brief resume of the facts is necessary.

5. It is admitted case of the parties that the insurer had produced attested copy of the Insurance Policy along with written-statement and also pleaded that its liability was limited to Rs. 15.000/- per passenger in case of death. The Tribunal has also referred to the plea of the insured regarding the statutory liability of the insurer, but without producing the original policy.

6. Although in the absence of evidence led by the insured to prove that the liability of the insurer was unlimited, it was not necessary to prove the contents of the Insurance policy, yet by way of abundant caution, the Insurance Company exa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document