Rajan vs Sukumaran on 14 March, 1997
21. The counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the respondent No. 2 has not produced the original policy or taken any steps to call upon the insured, the owner of the vehicle to produce the original policy so as to receive the copy of the policy produced along with the petition as secondary evidence. In support of his contention the counsel for the appellant made reliance upon the observations made by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Oriental Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Chandrawali 1989 ACJ 419 (P&H) and the decision of the single Judge of the Patna High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Gulam Rasool 1993 ACJ 1132 (Patna). Though in those reported rulings it has been held that the copy of the policy produced by the insurance company without calling upon the insured to produce the original policy and legally proving the copy of the policy as genuine is not admissible in evidence.