A copy of a document can be admitted in evidence as secondary evidence only if a case is made out under Sec.65 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and the marking of a document as an exhibit does not amount to its admission in evidence and its proof is not dispensed with unless it is admitted by the other party or its genuineness is established by proof in accordance with the provisions of Chap. V of the Evidence Act.

D.V.SEHGAL, J.

1. For the purpose of dealing with the questions of law involved herein, it is not necessary to set out the facts in detail. It would suffice to mention that the offending vehicle Metador bearing registration number HRM-1808 which caused the death of Attar Singh was insured with the Oriental Fire and General Insurance. Company Limited (for short the insurer ). On a claim application made under Sec.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 by the widow and the children of the deceased (for short the claimants ), the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the Tribunal ) awarded in their favour a sum of Rs. 91,200.00 as compensation holding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle. F.A.O. No. 232 of 1984 has been filed by the claimants who have a grievance that the compensation awarded is inadequate. F.A.O. No. 272 of 1984 is by the insurer which, besides impugning the award of the Tribunal on other grounds, contends that according to the policy of insurance its liability for the payment of compensation is limited to Rs. 50,000.00 . At the stage of the trial of the claim application before the Tribunal, the insurer did not lead any evidence. Its counsel, however, made a statement to the following effect on 20-9-1983 :-

"I produce true copy of insurance policy Ex.R-1 and dose my evidence."

2. The copy of the policy of insurance Ex.R-1 purports to have been attested as a true copy by the Assistant Divisional Manager of the insurer. It was produced before the Tribunal on 20-3-1983 when the above statement was made by its counsel. No objection to the above statement by the counsel for the insurer and the copy of the policy of insurance being marked as Ex.R-1 was taken by the claimants before the Tribunal. Its admissibility as such, however, was disputed by them when the above appeals came up for hearing before S.S. Sodhi, J. They placed reliance on my judgment in M/s Malwa Bus Service (P.) Ltd. Moga, District Faridkot V/s. Amrit Kaur, (1987) 91 Pun LR 618, wherein I, inter alia, observed thus- "Respondent 1 in the present case took a false plea denying the fact that the bus was insured with it. Thus, once it is proved that this plea is wrong and the bus was in fact insured with respondent 8, it must be held liable to payment of the entire amount of compensation. The learned counsel for the respondent 8, however, has made two submissions in defence. Firstly, he has submitted that the insurance policy has been brought on the record before the learned Tribunal as exhibit R. 1 and a perusal of the same shows that the liability of respondent 8 was limited to such amount as is necessary to meet with the requirements of the Act. I, however, find that exhibit R.1 is only a copy of the insurance policy. It was tendered in evidence by the statement of the counsel at the stage of closing the case. Section 64 of the Evidence Act, 1872 , provides that documents must be proved by primary evidence except in the cases mentioned in Sec.65. Section 65 ibid lays down that secondary evidence relating to a document may be given of its existence, condition or contents in the case where the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved or, of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it and when, after the notice mentioned in Sec.66, thereof such person does not produce it. Secondly, evidence of a document can also be produced where the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any reason not arising from his own fault or neglect, produce it in reasonable time or, where any of the conditions specified in Sec.65 exists. In the present case none of these conditions has been proved. Therefore copy of the insurance policy Ex.R-1, was not admissible in evidence as conditions of Sec.65 of