THE HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. MASTER SIDDANTH SANJAY JAMSANDEKAR AND ANR
Mandatary Nature of Section 65B Evidence Act Certificate in Motor Accident Claims and Insurer's Liability to Disprove Policy Authenticity.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:16882
Decision Date: 07-04-2026
List of Laws
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 65B); Civil Procedure Code, 1908; Tort Law - Negligence
- Facts: On 30th December 2009, Respondent No. 1, a 12-year-old child, was knocked down by a speeding taxi owned by Respondent No. 2. The claimant sustained polytrauma, including internal organ injuries and fractures. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded a compensation of Rs. 76,611 with 9% interest, holding the Appellant insurance company and the owner jointly and severally liable. The Appellant challenged the award, primarily contending that the insurance policy produced by the claimant was fake and forged. To support this, the Appellant relied on computer printouts of its premium register and oral testimony from an employee to show that no such policy was issued by them.
- Procedural Posture: The Appellant insurance company filed a First Appeal before the Bombay High Court challenging the judgment and award passed by the MACT, Mumbai, on grounds of liability and excessive compensation.
- Issue: 1. Whether the insurance policy relied upon by the claimant was proved to be fake by the Appellant. 2. Whether electronic evidence in the form of computer printouts is admissible without a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. 3. Whether the compensation awarded by the MACT was justifiable.
- Holding: 1. No, the Appellant failed to prove the policy was fake. 2. No, a certificate under Section 65B(4) is a mandatory condition precedent for the admissibility of electronic records. 3. Yes, the compensation was reasonable given the nature of the injuries and the age of the claimant.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the insurance policy submitted by the claimant contained all requisite details, including engine and chassis numbers, which the Appellant failed to disprove. The Appellant's reliance on computer-generated premium registers was legally unsustainable because they failed to provide the mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in "Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash K. Gorantyal", the Court affirmed that oral evidence cannot substitute the statutory requirement of a 65B certificate. Furthermore, the Appellant had not filed an FIR regarding the alleged forgery of the policy until years later, which weakened their stance. Regarding compensation, the Court found the amounts for pain, suffering, and special diet appropriate for a minor who suffered serious polytrauma.
🔒 For Members Only