Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

INSURANCE CLAIM CAN NOT BE REJECTED ON THE GROUND OF NON AVAILABILITY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE, ROUTE PERMIT, AND FITNESS CERTIFICATE FOR THE VEHICLE INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT – J&K HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has invalidated the repudiation of an insurance claim by the National Insurance Company Ltd. The Court held that the grounds cited by the insurance company – lack of registration certificate, route permit, and fitness certificate for the vehicle involved in an accident – were not valid. The judgment, pronounced by Hon’ble the Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, has far-reaching implications for insurance claims in similar cases.

The dispute arose when M/S Rash Builders Civil Contractors and Suppliers sought indemnification for damages caused to their vehicle in an accident. The insurance company had repudiated the claim on the basis that the vehicle was plied without the necessary vehicular documents. However, the Court examined each ground individually and concluded that the repudiation was unjust.

Regarding the lack of a registration certificate, the Court accepted the temporary registration certificate issued for the vehicle and dismissed the insurance company’s argument. In the words of the Court, “The said ground taken by the Insurance Company to deny the claim was not permissible.”

The Court further analyzed the requirement of a route permit and invoked Section 66(3)(j) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It observed that since the vehicle was not used for commercial purposes and was being moved for safe custody after purchase, no route permit was necessary. The Court held, “If the vehicle was used without carrying passengers or goods for which it was meant to be used, but merely was being shifted from one place to another place… the requirement of a route permit does not apply.”

On the issue of the fitness certificate, the Court emphasized that for a newly purchased vehicle, the fitness certificate is deemed to be included in the temporary registration certificate. The Court declared, “Fitness certificate would be implicit in the temporary registration certificate issued to a brand new vehicle.”

The Court also scrutinized the insurance company’s contention that the vehicle was carrying more passengers than permitted. It found that the insurance company had failed to provide evidence supporting this claim and had not made specific allegations in their repudiation letter. The Court held that no inference could be drawn without specific averments and ruled in favor of the insured, stating, “When two views are possible, the one which is favorable to the insured must be preferred.”

Date of Decision: 15th June 2023

National Insurance Company Ltd. thr. Its  vs M/S Rash Builders 

Latest Legal News