Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Acceptance of Photocopies as Evidence: Several judgments recognize photocopies as secondary evidence permissible under specific conditions. For example, ["Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. , Through Senior Divisional Manager VS Siyaram, S/o. Sohan Lal - Rajasthan"] states that photocopies can be admitted as secondary evidence if the original documents cannot be produced despite best efforts, and provided they are proven to be genuine and authentic. Similarly, ["Janardan Kumar VS Chandan Pratap Singh - Patna"] notes that secondary evidence, including photocopies, may be admissible if the original documents are unavailable, subject to proof of authenticity.
Authenticity and Legality of Photocopies: The courts emphasize the importance of establishing the authenticity of photocopies before they are accepted. ["JAYASINGHE V LEELAWATHIE AND OTHERS"] discusses the need for photocopies to be genuine, authentic, and properly certified, especially when tendered as evidence. The case highlights that photocopies, if not verified or certified, may be rejected, as observed in ["ABHISHEK vs M/S MOHAN TRACTORS PVT LTD & ANR - Punjab and Haryana"], where photocopies were rejected for lack of proof of their authenticity.
Photocopies in Settlement and Claims: In cases involving settlement agreements or claims, photocopies of communication, cheques, and reports are accepted as evidence of settlement proposals, provided they are supported by proper certification or acknowledgment. For instance, ["HEMANT Vs LAL SINGH AND ORS. - Punjab and Haryana"] and ["ABHISHEK vs M/S MOHAN TRACTORS PVT LTD & ANR - Punjab and Haryana"] confirm that photocopies of communication and cheques are attached as proof of settlement agreements, with the courts accepting them as sufficient evidence when accompanied by proper instructions and certifications.
Legal Provisions and Evidence Rules: The law under Sections 64 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act permits secondary evidence, including photocopies, under circumstances where the original cannot be produced. The courts require that such photocopies be compared with the original or certified by a competent authority to be considered admissible, as discussed in ["Janardan Kumar VS Chandan Pratap Singh - Patna"].
Limitations and Conditions: The courts are cautious about relying solely on photocopies unless their authenticity is established. The absence of an affidavit or certification, or failure to compare with the original, can lead to rejection, as in ["ABHISHEK vs M/S MOHAN TRACTORS PVT LTD & ANR - Punjab and Haryana"]. The credibility of photocopies depends heavily on proof of their accuracy and origin.
Can MACT accept photocopies of documents? Yes, the MACT can accept photocopies as secondary evidence, but only when they are properly certified, proven to be genuine, and circumstances prevent the production of the original document. The courts generally accept photocopies in the context of settlement agreements, claim evidence, or when original documents are unavailable despite diligent efforts.
Practical implications: It is crucial for parties to provide certification or proof of authenticity for photocopies to be admissible. Without such proof, photocopies may be rejected, as seen in several judgments. The legal framework supports the use of photocopies as secondary evidence but emphasizes the need for proper verification.
References:
In motor accident cases, claimants often face the challenge of submitting original documents to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). But what if originals are lost, damaged, or unavailable? A common question arises: whether MACT can accept photocopy of documents? This blog post dives into the legal framework governing the admissibility of photocopies in MACT proceedings, drawing from the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and relevant judicial precedents. While this provides general insights, it is not a substitute for professional legal advice—consult a lawyer for your specific case.
Under Indian law, photocopies are not admissible as primary evidence. Section 61 of the Indian Evidence Act defines primary evidence as the original document itself. Photocopies fall under secondary evidence as per Section 63, which includes certified copies, mechanical process copies (like photocopies), and oral accounts of contents. However, their acceptance is conditional. Gopal and another VS Ambiga and others - 2002 0 Supreme(Mad) 307
The main legal finding is that MACT can accept photocopies as secondary evidence under certain conditions but cannot treat them as primary evidence without procedural compliance. Courts emphasize strict adherence to rules to prevent misuse. Home Missionary Society of India, rep. by its Secretary VS Vepery Auxiliary of The Home Missionary Society of India, rep. by its Secretary Mrs. Rose Fernandes - 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 4002
To rely on photocopies, parties must file a formal application under Section 65(a), explaining why originals are unavailable (e.g., lost or destroyed). The court then evaluates:1. Proof of secondary evidence conditions under Section 63.2. Authenticity and comparison with originals.3. Relevance to the claim.
Section 65(a) of the Indian Evidence Act states that secondary evidence, such as photocopies, can be admitted only if the party seeking to produce them has filed an application under this section and obtained court permission. Home Missionary Society of India, rep. by its Secretary VS Vepery Auxiliary of The Home Missionary Society of India, rep. by its Secretary Mrs. Rose Fernandes - 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 4002
Without this, photocopies cannot be marked. For instance, in a case, documents like photocopies of insurance certificates and permits were scrutinized, and the tribunal held plaintiffs failed to adduce proper evidence. Subhas Singh Chaudhary vs Sarita Devi And Ors
MACT has discretion to accept photocopies if procedures are met, but objections from opponents must be recorded and addressed. Merely marking exhibits without discussion is impermissible. Home Missionary Society of India, rep. by its Secretary VS Vepery Auxiliary of The Home Missionary Society of India, rep. by its Secretary Mrs. Rose Fernandes - 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 4002
In practice, courts reject unproven photocopies. As stated above, only photocopies were filed and no witness from the Transport Authority was produced by the appellant to prove the said documents. These documents were, thus, rightly rejected by the learned Tribunal. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. vs KIRAN DEVI & ORS.
Another ruling stresses: S. 65 can be invoked only when conditions enumerated in S. 63 are satisfied—nowhere stated that photocopies in question were made by mechanical manner from original and were compared with original. Shiv Kumar Singh VS State of M. P. - 2021 Supreme(MP) 633
Case law consistently upholds procedural rigor:- Photocopies cannot be automatically admitted; prior permission and foundation are essential. Home Missionary Society of India, rep. by its Secretary VS Vepery Auxiliary of The Home Missionary Society of India, rep. by its Secretary Mrs. Rose Fernandes - 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 4002- In settlement appeals before High Courts, photocopies of letters and cheques were annexed but accepted only alongside applications and instructions. ABHISHEK vs M/S MOHAN TRACTORS PVT LTD & ANRMEENA vs M/S MOHAN TRACTORS PVT LTD & ANR- Under NI Act proceedings, marking photocopies without originals or reasons was questioned: admittedly, the original was not in their possession... marking of photocopy of documents as Ext. 2 is questionable. Milan Das VS Nripen Borkakoty - 2019 Supreme(Gau) 1305
These precedents show MACT and higher courts prioritize originals or strictly compliant secondary evidence. Gopal and another VS Ambiga and others - 2002 0 Supreme(Mad) 307
Photocopies may be permitted in:- Cases of lost/destroyed originals, post Section 65(a) application. Home Missionary Society of India, rep. by its Secretary VS Vepery Auxiliary of The Home Missionary Society of India, rep. by its Secretary Mrs. Rose Fernandes - 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 4002- Urgent matters or settlements, but with court scrutiny. For example, in appeals, photocopies of settlement documents were taken on record after acceptance. Yogita VS Sandeep Kumar - 2018 Supreme(P&H) 1657
Limitations include:- No automatic acceptance; prosecution must prove mechanical process and comparison. Shiv Kumar Singh VS State of M. P. - 2021 Supreme(MP) 633- In consumer or writ matters, belated or unverified photocopies face rejection. Manavshakti Gruh Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. Through its President, Sheikh Mehmood Sheikh Mehboob VS Ramesh Sampatrao RewatkarNetra Singh Kunwar VS State of Uttarakhand - 2018 Supreme(UK) 177
To avoid inadmissibility:- Always file originals if possible.- For photocopies, submit a Section 65(a) application early, detailing reasons and proving authenticity (e.g., affidavits, witness testimony).- Anticipate objections and prepare responses.- Courts should record findings on procedures before acceptance. Home Missionary Society of India, rep. by its Secretary VS Vepery Auxiliary of The Home Missionary Society of India, rep. by its Secretary Mrs. Rose Fernandes - 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 4002
Advocates play a key role: Advocates should ensure that all procedural requirements are strictly adhered to to prevent inadmissibility issues.
In summary, MACT cannot accept photocopies as primary evidence and treats them as secondary only after Section 65(a) compliance. This safeguards trial integrity in motor accident claims. Key takeaways:- File applications promptly.- Prove loss of originals and authenticity.- Heed precedents to strengthen your case.
While these guidelines are generally applicable, outcomes depend on facts. Seek tailored advice from a legal expert. Stay informed to navigate MACT proceedings effectively.
References:1. Gopal and another VS Ambiga and others - 2002 0 Supreme(Mad) 307: Clarifies expert opinions on photocopies without originals.2. Home Missionary Society of India, rep. by its Secretary VS Vepery Auxiliary of The Home Missionary Society of India, rep. by its Secretary Mrs. Rose Fernandes - 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 4002: Mandates Section 65(a) for secondary evidence.
(Word count: approx. 950. This post is for informational purposes only.)
#MACTEvidence, #SecondaryEvidence, #IndianEvidenceAct
The appellant agrees to accept a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- over and above the amount awarded by the learned MACT, Bhiwani on account of injuries suffered by the appellant in the accident in question as full and final settlement of his claim. ... A photocopy of communication dated 21.12.2020 of the counsel for the appellant is attached as annexure A1 and photocopy of the Account Payee Cheque, dated 24.12.2020 of Rs. 2,75,000/- in favour of the appellant is attached as Annexure ... Learned counsel for t....
The appellant has agreed to accept a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- over and above the amount awarded by the learned MACT, Jind on account of injuries received by the appellant in the accident in question as full and final settlement of his claim. ... Photocopy of the letter (Annexure A-1) regarding settlement of claim from Mr. Ajay Kumar Kansal, Advocate, counsel for the appellant and photocopy of cheque (Annexure A-2) are annexed along with the application. ... Learned counsel for the appellant submits that h....
Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? A.K. SIKRI,J. ... As stated above, only photocopies were filed and no witness from the Transport Authority was produced by the appellant to prove the said documents. These documents were, thus, rightly rejected by the learned Tribunal. ... However, the appellant cannot rely upon the aforesaid documents which ha....
Thus, in view of the above discussion, the instant writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.05.2019 (Annexure-10) passed by the MACT, Jahajpur, District Bhilwara, is hereby quashed and set aside with the direction to allow and accept the photocopy of the Roznamcha report dated 19/20 March ... Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given. ... Thus, in order to adjudicate the crucial issue as to whether the respondent No.1 suffered injuries on account of accident on....
The appellants have agreed to accept a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- over and above the amount awarded by the learned MACT, Faridabad on account of injuries received by the clamant – Umed Singh (since deceased) in the accident in question as full ... Photocopy of the letter OMKAR SINGH 2021.01.22 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-464-CII-2021 in/and Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he has specific instructions from the appellants to accept counter offer of t....
of the owner-book, photocopy of tax token, photocopy of Insurance certificate, photocopy of fitness, photocopy of permit and Tribunal on the issues no.V & VI are contrary to the record holding that the plaintiffs have not adduced any evidence on the point whether ... offending vehicle was having any valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident nor they have adduced any evidence on the point whether ... Ghosh has submitted that on verification it was found that th....
KEGALLE 3817/L MARCH 31,2006 Civil Procedure Code, Sections 121 (2), Sections 154 (3), Sections 175 (2) - Listing of documents - Cross examination - Documents tendered - Photocopy -Applicability of proviso to Section 175 (2) - Legally admissible ? - Genuine? -Authentic ? ... Firstly, whether the document is authentic, in other words, is it what the party tendering it represents it to be; Secondly, whether, supposing it to be authentic, it constitutes legally admissible evidence as ag....
The photocopy is said to be the copy of true/certified copy of original Taksimnama dated 29.09.1984. 7. As a general rule, documents are proved by leading primary evidence. ... Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given. ... However, if secondary evidence is admissible, it may be adduced in any form in which it may be available, whether by production of a copy, duplicate copy of a copy, by oral evidence of the contents or in another form. ... In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general....
The appellant has agreed to accept a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- over and above the amount awarded by the learned MACT, Jind on account of settlement of claim from Mr. ... Ajay Kumar Kansal, Advocate, counsel for the appellant and photocopy of cheque (Annexure A-2) are annexed along with Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has specific This appeal has been filed by the claimant 3 appellant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded to her by the learned MACT
The appellants have agreed to accept a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- over and above the amount awarded by the learned MACT, Jind on account of regarding settlement of claim from Mr. ... Ajay Kumar Kansal, Advocate, counsel for the appellants and photocopy of cheque (Annexure A-2) are Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has specific the appellants and insurance company that a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- over and above the amount awarded by learned MACT
It is also not known as to whether the photocopy was done from the original copy of the documents by mechanical process and the copies compared with such copies. The prosecution, in its application, has also not stated that the documents as mentioned above have been lost or destroyed and therefore, section 65(c) of the Act has no role to play in the instant case. As such, it is clear from the charge sheet that the aforesaid documents were in whose possession at the relevant point of time.
That, admittedly, the original was not in their possession at the time of filing the examination-in-chief. That apart, complainant has not mentioned the reason behind the documents not being in his possession. That, since this is a case under NI Act, there is no provision to grant leave for filing document on subsequent stage of the proceeding. Therefore, the marking of photocopy of documents as Ext. 2 is questionable.
The appellant has accepted the said reduced amount and has received a sum of Rs.5 lac in the shape of bank draft and a cheque of Rs.5 lac dated 01.06.2018. Photocopy of the said documents have been taken on record.
This vital aspect has not been disclosed in the writ petition, where it is alleged that petitioner received notice only on 27.10.2017. Perusal of those documents reveals that letters issued on 12.10.2017 by S.D.M., Pithoragarh/Presiding Officer as well as Chief Development Officer were duly served upon the petitioner on 12.10.2017 and petitioner acknowledged receipt of these letters, by putting his signatures. Photocopy of certain documents have been enclosed with the counter affidavit.
Only photocopy of the computer print-outs of those documents are placed on file. The prescription issued by Dr. Nitin Tiwari, dated 15.03.2012 was also placed on record.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
