Why digital evidence now decides commercial claims
Most large commercial claims today turn on electronic records. A fire claim leans on CCTV and access logs, a marine or motor claim on telematics and GPS, a fidelity or cyber claim on system and audit logs, and almost every disputed claim involves emails and digital correspondence. When a claim is contested, whether the insurer is repudiating or the insured is suing, that electronic evidence has to be admissible in court to count for anything.
The rules for admitting electronic records have changed. Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 replaces Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and now governs the admissibility of electronic records in Indian courts. For claims teams, surveyors and fraud investigators, this is not a cosmetic renumbering. The conditions attached to admitting digital evidence have been tightened, and evidence that does not meet them risks being shut out regardless of how persuasive it looks.
The practical stake is blunt: a repudiation built on CCTV that is not properly certified, or a subrogation suit relying on logs without the right certificate, can fail on admissibility before the merits are even reached. The quality of the underlying evidence does not rescue defective certification.
The dual-certificate regime: Part A and Part B
The most consequential change is the certificate structure. The new Schedule mandates a dual-certificate regime: a certificate by the device operator or party (Part A) and a certificate by an expert (Part B). This differs from the single certificate that the old Section 65B required.
What each certificate does
Part A is the operational account: the person responsible for the device or system attests to how the electronic record was produced, from which device, and in what conditions. Part B is the technical layer: an expert attests to the integrity of the record. The two together are meant to close the gap that a single certificate left, separating the operational chain of custody from the technical verification of integrity.
For an insurer, this means the certification has to be planned at the point evidence is collected, not improvised when litigation arrives. The device operator's account and the expert's verification both need to be obtainable, which has consequences for how CCTV, telematics and log data are gathered and preserved from the outset of a claim.
Hash values and tamper-checking
The expert certificate carries a specific technical requirement. The Part B expert certificate must state the hash value of the electronic record and the algorithm used to generate it, which allows tamper-checking by comparing hash values.
A hash value is a digital fingerprint of a file. If even one bit of the record changes, the hash changes, so a record whose hash matches the certified value can be shown not to have been altered since certification. This is the mechanism the new regime uses to give a court confidence that the CCTV clip, the email export or the log file in front of it is the same one that was captured.
For fraud investigation this cuts both ways and is worth welcoming. An insurer resisting a fabricated or doctored piece of evidence can point to a hash mismatch, and an insurer relying on genuine evidence can prove its integrity. The discipline it demands is that the hash be computed and recorded at the right moment, when the evidence is secured, and preserved through the chain of custody. Evidence that is copied, re-exported or handled carelessly before the hash is fixed loses the protection the mechanism offers.
When digital evidence is admissible without further proof
The Section 63 conditions are gatekeeping conditions. Electronic records printed, stored, recorded or copied on optical or magnetic media or in semiconductor memory are admissible without further proof of the original only if the Section 63 conditions are satisfied.
The trade the section offers
The section offers a bargain. Meet the conditions, including the dual certificate and the hash value, and the electronic record comes in without the party having to produce and prove the original device or storage every time. Fail the conditions, and the shortcut is unavailable, which in practice often means the evidence does not come in at all in the form relied upon.
For a claims or subrogation team, the operational lesson is that admissibility is engineered upstream, at collection, not downstream, at trial. A few concrete steps follow:
- Capture certification at source. Obtain the Part A operator account and arrange Part B expert verification close to when evidence is collected.
- Fix the hash early. Compute and record the hash value and algorithm at the point of securing the record.
- Protect the chain of custody. Avoid re-exporting or editing the record after the hash is fixed, since that breaks the tamper-check.
- Update templates. Replace single-certificate formats inherited from Section 65B with the dual-certificate structure.
Rebuilding evidence handling across the claims function
Section 63 is a process change as much as a legal one, and it reaches every part of the claims function that touches digital evidence. Surveyors gathering CCTV, fraud investigators pulling logs, panel lawyers preparing repudiation defences, and subrogation teams building recovery suits all now work to the dual-certificate and hash-value standard.
The risk of inaction is concrete. A strong repudiation can collapse if the CCTV that proves the insured's misrepresentation is excluded for want of proper certification. A meritorious subrogation suit against a negligent third party can stall if the telematics or log evidence of fault is inadmissible. In both cases the loss is self-inflicted, caused by evidence handling rather than by the facts.
The right response is to bake the Section 63 requirements into the claims and investigation playbook so that every piece of electronic evidence is collected, certified and hashed to a standard that survives a courtroom challenge. That work depends on understanding how a given policy's conditions, exclusions and evidentiary expectations interact with the litigation that may follow a claim.
Sarvada gives commercial insurance brokers and claims teams structured, searchable access to insurer policy wordings and the intelligence around them, so the conditions, warranties and evidentiary requirements that a contested claim will hinge on can be read precisely against the facts being assembled. Request Access to align evidence handling with the wordings that decide the outcome.
