Delhi High Court Frames Criminal Contempt Charges Against Advocate For Scandalizing Judge On LinkedIn After Cyber Cell Traces IP Logs Testimony Of Partially Hostile Witnesses Can Be Relied Upon If Corroborated: Delhi High Court Upholds Police Officer's Conviction Subordinate Engineers Entitled To Non-Functional Upgradation Even If Level 8 Reached Via MACP: Supreme Court FEMA Adjudicating Authority Cannot Overrule Competent Authority's Refusal To Confirm Asset Seizure: Supreme Court Candidate Cannot Claim Lower Preference Post After Securing First Choice Under Merit-Cum-Preference System: Madhya Pradesh High Court Official Cannot Escape Corruption Trial Merely Because 90% Payment Was Made Prior To His Joining: Calcutta High Court Employee Who Evades Cross-Examining Witnesses Cannot Later Claim 'No Evidence' In Departmental Enquiry: Andhra Pradesh High Court Fictitious Or Non-Genuine Revenue Entries Cannot Confer Adhivasi Rights Under UP Zamindari Abolition Act: Allahabad High Court Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination Of Compassionate Appointee Over Age Dispute, Says Such Claims Cannot Be Kept Pending Indefinitely Alleged Custodial Torture Does Not Automatically Attract Contempt Under 'D.K. Basu' Unless Specific Arrest Guidelines Are Violated: Gujarat High Court Authority Cannot Act As 'Judge In Own Cause'; Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes Distillery License Cancellation Over Procedural Impropriety Financial Corporations Have Absolute Power To Fix Employee Pay, Prior State Govt Approval Not Required: Jharkhand High Court Custodial Interrogation Not Required For Police Inspector Accused Only Of Illegal Confinement Prior To Victim's Death: Karnataka High Court Rescission Of Contract Without Hearing Is Illegal; Courts Cannot Interfere In Second Appeal If Findings Rest On Unrebutted Evidence: Gauhati High Court RTI Penalty Proceedings Are Between Commission and SPIO Alone — Complainant Has No Right To Be Heard: Kerala High Court Catastrophic To Allow Law To Take Its Own Course: MP High Court Quashes POCSO, BNS FIR After Victim And Accused Marry No Presumption Under Section 20 PC Act Without Proof Of Demand And Acceptance: Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against Sub-Inspector Attack On Judicial Officers Is Criminal Contempt; Supreme Court Orders CBI/NIA Probe Into West Bengal Incident Prolonged Physical Relationship By Educated Woman Amounts To 'Promiscuity', Not Rape Induced By Misconception Of Fact: Punjab & Haryana High Court Father Cannot Escape Duty To Maintain Minor Children Merely Because Mother Earns Substantial Income: Uttarakhand High Court Divorced Wife Entitled To Maintenance; Mere Earning Capacity Not A Bar: Orissa High Court

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