Dismissed

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Rani Rajpoot and 4 Others

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2021FAFO/89/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed appeals filed by United India Insurance Company challenging insurance claims on the ground of non-availability of fitness certificate. The court held that mere expiry of valid fitness without permit cancellation does not constitute a fundamental breach, and the insurer is estopped from repudiating the claim after issuing the policy.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed; pre-deposit to be remitted to Tribunal.

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Rani Rajpoot and… — Insurance | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 89 of 2020

¶3

Appellant :- United India Insurance Company Limited Respondent :- Smt. Rani Rajpoot And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Arun Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Syed Mushfiq Ali

¶4

with

¶5

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 90 of 2020

¶6

Appellant :- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Gajraj Singh And 6 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Arun Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Syed Mushfiq Ali

¶7

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Syed Mushfiq Ali, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶9

These appeals have been filed challenging the award dated 07.09.2019 in M.A.C.P. No.241 of 2017 and 242 of 2017 respectively by the Insurance Company only on the ground that fitness was not available at the time of accident.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the judgment of Kerala High Court in case of Pareed Pillai Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.; 2018 (10) Laws (Ker) 124 .

¶11

To support his argument, it is submitted that Constitution Bench of Kerala High Court has held that lack of fitness is a fundamental breach and, therefore, in absence of availability of fitness, Insurance Company is entitled to repudiate the claim.

¶12

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that High Court of Allahabad in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Uma Tripathi and others; 2019

¶13

(8) ADJ 253 has distinguished the judgment rendered in case of Pareed Pillai Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd . It is held that permit under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be cancelled or suspended after giving opportunity to the owner, therefore, there was no breach of the insurance policy. Dealing with this aspect, Hon'ble co-ordinate Bench of this Court has reproduced provisions contained in Section 56(1), 66(1) and 84(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 touching the aspect of fitness certificate and has culled out a ratio that for the purpose of registration of transport vehicle, a fitness certificate as contemplated under Section 56 of the 1988 Act is mandatory and plying of a transport vehicle without a valid fitness certificate amounts to violation of condition of permit. However, dealing with the provisions contained in Section 86(1)(a), it is held that the Motor Vehicles Act does not contemplate that if there is violation of any condition of the permit, the permit shall automatically be deemed to have been cancelled.

¶14

In this backdrop discussing the facts of the present case since the vehicle in question namely Appe Loader bearing Registration No. U.P.-93-E-4873 was having a valid permit then mere expiry of fitness, which was valid from 20.07.2017 to 19.07.2018, is not such a fatal breach, especially when permit was not cancelled on the ground of lack of fitness so to disentitle a transport vehicle to ply on the road, this Court is of the opinion that judgment of a co-ordinate Bench is binding on this court. Section 150(2)(a)(i)(c) talks about breach of the condition of policy where, vehicle is used for the purpose not allowed by the permit.

¶15

In the present case, it is not the case of the Insurance Company that there was no permit of the offending vehicle and it was used for the purpose not allowed by the permit, therefore,

¶16

merely on account of non-availability of fitness and especially when there is no evidence that the vehicle was unfit to be taken on road, inasmuch as, fitness has been subsequently renewed, in the light of the law laid down in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Uma Tripathi and others , there being no fundamental breach of policy condition and policy having been issued by the Insurance Company without verifying the fitness of the vehicle, esttops the Insurance Company from raising the plea of fitness, inasmuch as, while insuring the vehicle, when fitness was not available, then it was open to the Insurance Company to have refused to insure the vehicle in absence of the fitness, but Insurance Company having failed to take such recourse is estopped from repudiating the claim on the ground of fitness. Therefore, appeals fail and are dismissed.

¶17

Appellants pre-deposit in compliance of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, if any, be remitted to the Tribunal to be adjusted from the amount payable to the claimants by the Insurance Company.

¶18

Order Date :- 21.1.2021 Ashutosh

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Rani Rajpoot and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Rani Rajpoot and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Vidya Devi and 5 Others

Gulapsa and 3 Others Vs Mohammad Ismail and 2 Others

Devender Kumar Verma Alis Muniya and Others Vs R.S.R.T.C. and Others

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gajraj Singh and 6 Others

Smt.Poonam Vs Amit Kumar and Another

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Radhika and 4 Others