Delhi High Court Holds Photocopy Of Insurance Cover Note Insufficient To Prove Valid Insurance Policy, dismissing the claimants’ appeal and upholding the insurer’s exoneration in a 2007 fatal accident case.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has held that the mere production of a photocopy of an insurance cover note cannot be treated as sufficient proof of a valid contract of insurance, and dismissed an appeal by the family of a motorcyclist killed in a 2007 road accident against the exoneration of the insurer [Aruna Attri and Others v. Sonu Kashyap and Others].
Justice Anish Dayal pronounced the judgment on September 18, 2026, after reserving it on July 30, 2026. Advocates Manish Maini, Aastha Chauhan and Abhinav Sharma appeared for the claimants, and Advocates Pradeep Gaur, Amit Gaur and Kaarrtikey Parashar appeared for Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
How the case reached here
On December 24, 2007, a truck driven by the first respondent and owned by the second respondent hit Lalit Attri, who was riding a motorcycle near Suraj Mal Stadium on Rohtak Road, Delhi. He died of his injuries. On August 20, 2014, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (West) awarded Rs 41,23,000 with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum, but exonerated the insurer on the finding that cover note No. 465971, relied on by the claimants, was forged. Liability was fixed jointly and severally on the driver and the owner. The claimants appealed against the insurer’s exoneration.
What the Court held
The Court noted that liability under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 requires a valid policy, proven negligence and no legally sustainable defence. It held that the standard of preponderance of probabilities governs the accident and negligence, but cannot by itself fix liability on an insurer without proof of the underlying contract of insurance.
“Mere production of a photocopy of a cover note cannot be treated as sufficient proof”
The claimants produced neither the original cover note nor the original policy, and no evidence of payment of premium for the offending vehicle. The insurer’s witnesses showed that the cover notes related to other vehicles and persons, which the Court found discharged the insurer’s burden. The Court added that the claimants could have sought documents and forensic examination under Section 169 of the Act but did not do so.
Pay and recover, premium and the insurer’s delay
The Court held that a “pay and recover” direction necessarily requires a pre-existing contractual relationship, which was absent here. It also noted that, even leaving aside the finding of forgery, no proof of premium payment was produced, which Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 requires before the risk is assumed. The insurer lodged its complaint about the allegedly fake note in March 2012, about five years after the accident, but the Court held that this omission could not turn the absence of proof into proof of a policy.
The duty on insurers
While dismissing the appeal, the Court said that there is a duty cast upon an insurance company to take appropriate action on discovering a false or fake cover note. It observed that the officials responsible must be identified and held accountable, and urged internal inquiries and disciplinary or penal action against errant officers.
Why the judgment matters
Claimants in motor accident cases often depend on a cover note when the policy itself is not on record. The judgment makes clear that a photocopy, without the original document, the policy or proof of premium, will not shift liability to an insurer, and that claimants who suspect an insurance dispute should use the tools in Section 169 early.
It also puts insurers on notice that sitting on a fake cover note complaint invites judicial criticism, even where the insurer ultimately escapes liability.
Case Title: Aruna Attri and Others v. Sonu Kashyap and Others [MAC.APP. 1190/2014]
Bench: Justice Anish Dayal, Delhi High Court
Date of Judgment: September 18, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Manish Maini, Aastha Chauhan and Abhinav Sharma for the claimants; Advocates Pradeep Gaur, Amit Gaur and Kaarrtikey Parashar for Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.