Section 65B certification is a mandatory condition precedent for electronic evidence challenging insurance policy validity.

On December 30, 2009, Respondent No. 1 (a 12-year-old minor) was struck by a speeding taxi (bearing MH-01-X-4050) while walking along Dr. B.A. Road, Mumbai.

The minor sustained polytrauma, including internal organ injuries and fractures.

A claim was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Mumbai, which awarded the Claimant Rs. 76,611 with 9% interest per annum, holding the Appellant (insurer) and Respondent No. 2 (owner) jointly and severally liable.

The Appellant challenged the award, contending that the insurance policy was "fake and bogus," the compensation quantum was excessive, and the MACT erred in rejecting electronic evidence regarding the policy's validity.

The court applied the principles of tortious liability and negligence under the Motor Vehicles Act.

It strictly enforced Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding the admissibility of electronic records.

It relied on the landmark Supreme Court precedent Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash K Gorantyal (2020), which established that a certificate under Section 65B(4) is a mandatory condition precedent for the admissibility of electronic evidence.

Additionally, it followed the compensation principles for non-pecuniary losses (pain, suffering, and special diet) as illustrated in Chaus Taushif Alimiya v. Memon Mahmmad Umar Anwarbhai.

The Court affirmed the MACT’s finding of negligence, noting that the driver failed to exercise care while the minor was walking on a road without a pavement.

On the issue of the insurance policy, the Appellant’s defense failed primarily on evidentiary grounds; the computer printouts of the premium register intended to prove the policy's non-existence were deemed inadmissible as they were not accompanied by a Section 65B certificate.

The Court noted that the Appellant failed to disprove specific details on the Claimant’s policy certificate, such as the chassis and engine numbers.

Regarding quantum, the Court held that since the Claimant was a minor who suffered polytrauma and fractures, the awards for special diet (Rs. 5,000), conveyance (Rs. 5,000), and pain and suffering (Rs. 40,000) were not exorbitant but necessary for the victim's physical and mental well-being.

The interest rate of 9% was upheld as being consistent with prevailing bank rates.

The Court held that an insurer cannot escape liability by merely claiming a policy is fake without providing admissible evidence under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.

The Claimant was granted liberty to withdraw the deposited amount with accrued interest, and the Appellant was directed to satisfy the award within three weeks if the amount had not yet been deposited.

No costs were awarded.