Trial Court Can’t Reject Section 319 CrPC Application Based On Investigating Officer’s Opinion Or Plea Of Alibi: Supreme Court No Contempt Made Out Against Union For Not Creating Dedicated Cell To Monitor Legislators' Asset Growth: Supreme Court NGT Imposing Crores As Damages Without Proper Hearing Is Counterproductive To Environmental Protection: Supreme Court No Grounds For Continued Incarceration If Trial Not Likely To Conclude Soon: Supreme Court Grants Bail In Rape & IT Act Case Protection Against Double Jeopardy Is A Fundamental Right, Plea Cannot Be Rejected On Ground Of Delay: Madhya Pradesh High Court Suit For Interest On Wrongfully Retained Earnest Money Not Barred By 6-Month Limitation Under Section 53B DDA Act: Delhi High Court Driving A Car In Which Co-Passenger Carries Contraband Does Not Make Driver Guilty Under NDPS Act: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail Former MLA's Claim Of Forged B.Com Certificates To Damage Political Reputation Falls Flat: Gauhati High Court Rejects Demand For Fresh Investigation Qualified Gynaecologist Cannot Claim Maintenance From Neurosurgeon Husband By Choosing Not To Work: Allahabad High Court Medical Negligence: Legal Heirs Of Deceased Doctor Can Be Impleaded, Liability Confined To Deceased's Estate: Supreme Court Company Law | Absence Of Name In Register Of Members No Bar To Filing Oppression & Mismanagement Petition If Conduct Recognises Proprietary Interest: Supreme Court Complainant Must Exhaust Statutory Remedies Under BNSS Before Approaching High Court For FIR: Supreme Court Candidates Must Possess Essential Qualification On Date Of Application, Not On Date Of Interview: Supreme Court Seniority Disputes Cannot Be Reopened After Two Decades; Fence-Sitters Barred From Agitating Stale Claims: Supreme Court Child Lured With Chocolate, Sexually Assaulted In Shop: Gauhati High Court Says Child Victim's Testimony Of Sterling Quality Needs No Corroboration Prosecution For Non-Filing Of Income Tax Return Void Without Regular Assessment And Initiation Of Penalty Proceedings: Madras High Court Mere File Notings Are Not Government Decisions & Carry No Legal Sanctity: Orissa High Court Denies Disclosure Of Sealed Cover Documents NDPS | Disclosure Statement Of Co-Accused Made In Police Custody Not Substantive Evidence Against Others: Punjab & Haryana High Court BMC Officers Responsible For Rampant Illegalities By Granting Repair Permissions Without Verifying Legality Of Structures: Bombay 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