Proof of insurance shifts the evidential burden to the insurer to produce its policy records.

The appellant was injured when a tempo bearing registration No. MWF-2080 struck him and another person on 16 July 1990.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found the insured liable to pay compensation of Rs. 48,000 with interest at 9% per annum, but dismissed the claim against the insurer because the claimant had not proved that the tempo was insured with it

On appeal, the claimant relied on police and RTO records, including an RTO certificate identifying the vehicle, its owner, the insurer, the insurance period and a policy/cover-note number.

The insurer produced a policy bearing a corresponding number, but it related to a different vehicle and insured person; its witness had not brought records relating to the cover note

Whether the claimant discharged his initial burden of proving that tempo No. MWF-2080 was insured with the respondent insurer at the time of the accident

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required enhancement in light of the injuries and the claimant’s asserted income and losses

The judgment identifies no specific statutory provision as the basis of its decision.

It applies the evidentiary principle that a claimant must first establish an initial basis for the asserted insurance cover, but where relevant insurance records are held by the insurer, the claimant is not expected to produce records inaccessible to him.

Once the claimant’s initial burden is met, the insurer’s failure to produce the relevant records may support an adverse inference

The judgment lists authorities cited by the appellant, including The Oriental Fire General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhiwa Shidawa and Wayada, but does not set out a distinct rule from those authorities

The police record identified MWF-2080 as the offending tempo, while the RTO records connected that vehicle and its owner with the respondent insurer for a period covering the accident.

The RTO certificate recorded a policy/cover-note number, although it did not establish which type of number it was

The insurer’s witness produced a policy with a corresponding number, but that policy related to a different vehicle and insured; he also acknowledged that cover-note records were maintained by another department and did not produce them

The Court held that the claimant had discharged his initial burden and that the insurer’s failure to produce the relevant records warranted an adverse inference; the Tribunal had therefore wrongly placed the continuing burden on the claimant

On compensation, the Court considered the claimant’s injuries, functional disability and claimed heads of loss, and concluded that the appeal should be allowed

It modified the Tribunal’s judgment and directed respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay jointly and severally Rs. 2,14,080 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the application until realization, within eight weeks of uploading of the order