Deputy Registrar Of Chits Competent To Act As Arbitrator And Issue Recovery Certificates; Not Limited To Registrar Alone: Telangana High Court Custody With Biological Mother Presumed Lawful; Writ Of Habeas Corpus Not A Remedy To Enforce Foreign Court’s Return Orders: Bombay High Court Ocular Testimony Of Victim Prevails Over Medical Evidence In Rape Cases If Found Credible: Allahabad High Court Condonation Of Delay Should Follow Justice-Oriented Liberal Approach, Unintentional Delay Shouldn't Block Justice: Calcutta High Court Digital Banking Fraud: Clicking Suspicious Links Constitutes Customer Negligence; Liability Cannot Be Fastened On Bank Without Forensic Evidence: Delhi High Court Vexatious Matrimonial Complaints Filed As Counterblast To Divorce Is Abuse Of Process; Allegations Against In-Laws Must Be Specific: Gujarat High Court Sale Deed Executed By Son During Father's Lifetime Based On Manipulated Records Is Void Ab Initio: Karnataka High Court Charge Sheet E-Filed After Court Hours Deemed Filed Next Day; Accused Entitled To Default Bail: Kerala High Court Landowners Can't Use Antedated Stamp Papers To Defeat Ceiling Limits; Section 22 Land Reforms Act Prevails Over Registration Act: Madras High Court Rajasthan High Court Orders Tehsildar To Personally Pay ₹2 Lakh Compensation For 53-Day Illegal Detention Despite Suspension Of Sentence Mere Existence Of Dargah Doesn't Grant Jurisdiction To Waqf Board; Statutory Survey Under Sections 4 & 5 Is Mandatory: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Sets Aside Interim Stay On Delhi Race Club Eviction; Says Courts Can't Halt Statutory Proceedings Without Recording Finding On Prima Facie Case

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