Section 106 IEA Cannot Fill the Gaps in a Shaky Prosecution Case: Rajasthan High Court Rebukes Investigative Lapses in Murder Trial Accident Claim | Ration Card Cannot Decide a Man’s Age: Punjab & Haryana High Court Forgery in Wife’s Name and Defiance of Court Orders Amount to Contempt: Kerala High Court Limitation | Selectively Active Litigant Cannot Seek Liberal Condonation: Delhi High Court Refuses to Revive 1589 Days’ Delay Mere Unnatural Death Within Seven Months Is Not Dowry Death: Delhi High Court Refuses to Reverse Acquittal in Ruby Hanging Case A Partition Suit Is a Suit for Land: Bombay High Court Rejects Plaint for Want of Clause XII Leave Senior Citizens Act Cannot Be A Shortcut To Reclaim Property Registered In Wife's Name: Bombay High Court State Bound By Its Concession; More Meritorious Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment: Supreme Court Balances Equity In Rajasthan Grade III Teacher Recruitment Penalty For Delayed Compensation Is The Employer's Personal Fault — Insurance Company Cannot Be Made To Pay For The Employer's Own Default: Supreme Court Bail Cannot Be a Mechanical Exercise in Murder and Atrocities Cases: Supreme Court Cancels Bail Granted on ‘Extraneous Considerations’ Even A Lathi Becomes A Murder Weapon When Repeatedly Aimed At The Head With Bone-Deep Force: Supreme Court Applies The Virsa Singh Test To Demolish The Defence That Lathis Are Not Deadly Weapons Section 149 IPC While Demanding Proof Of Individual Fatal Blow Runs Contrary To The Very Principle Of Vicarious Liability: Supreme Court Statement Under Section 108 Is Substantive Evidence If Voluntary:  Supreme Court Upholds Conviction In Smuggling Case U.P. Anti-Conversion Act Does Not Apply To Interfaith Live-In Relationships Unless Actual Conversion Is Intended: Allahabad High Court Section 480(6) BNSS | If Trial Is Not Concluded Within Sixty Days… Such Person Shall Be Released On Bail: MP High Court Bombay High Court Lifts Stay on Banks’ Fraud Proceedings Against Anil Ambani Preventive Detention Cannot Survive Without Supplying Relied Upon Documents: Karnataka High Court Reasserts Article 22(5) Safeguards Court Subordinate Who Attended Duty Drunk, Abused Advocates & Misbehaved With Judge's Family Gets No Mercy: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Removal From Service XXXVII Rule 3 CPC | Claim Of 24% Interest Without Prima Facie Contract Cannot Be Blindly Accepted In Summary Proceedings : Madras High Court On Summary Suit Defence Re-Testing Under NDPS Act Cannot Be a Tool to Overcome an Adverse Lab Report: J&K High Court Quashes Charge-Sheet After First Report Ruled Out Heroin Shocking And Disturbing That Cows Died Due To Starvation: Kerala High Court Pulls Up Travancore Devaswom Board Over Neglect Of Temple Gosala Promoter Cannot Retain Ownership By Merely Using The Word ‘Lease’: Bombay High Court Upholds Ownership Deemed Conveyance Under MOFA

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