Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

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