HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR …

Pronounced on: 21.08.2025 National Insurance Company Limited …….Appellant(s)

Through: Mr Aatir Kawoosa, Advocate Versus Naseema Begum and others ……Respondent(s)

Through: Mr G. N. Shaheen, Advocate for respondents 4&5/review petitioners CORAM:

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE JUDGEMENT

1. Review of judgement dated 16^th March 2021, passed by this Court in an appeal, being MA no.33/2018 titled National Insurance Company Limited v. Naseema Begum and others, is sought by respondents 4&5 in the said appeal, who are being hereinafter referred to as “review petitioners”.

2. I have heard Mr G. N. Shaheen, learned counsel for review petitioners, and considered the matter. I have gone through judgement dated 16^th March 2021.

3. It is contention of review petitioners, which has also been reiterated by their counsel, that this Court has not appreciated arguments and judgements produced by their counsel in the appeal, which led to legal error in judgement. Five judgements are stated to have been submitted when arguments were made by counsel for review petitioners during hearing the appeal and even mention about those judgements have not been made in judgement dated 16^th March 2021. It is being also stated that even arguments made by counsel representing review petitioners are not reflected in the judgement. Reiterating submissions made in the appeal, it is being vehemently stated that the Tribunal had framed four issues, which included about validity of driving licence and route permit of offending vehicle, viz. whether owner of offending vehicle, i.e., respondent no.2 had permitted respondent no.3 to ply offending vehicle without valid and effective driving licence and route permit of vehicle and thereby committed breach of condition of policy, if so, what would be its effect on the claim petition. According to learned counsel for review petitioners, driving licence was valid and effective at the time of accident. Offending vehicle had route permit. Insurance Company failed before Tribunal to prove violation of any terms and conditions of contract of insurance. It is stated by counsel for review petitioners that this court wrongly upset findings of the Tribunal.

4. It is also strenuously stated by learned counsel for review petitioners that judgement of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Chella Bharathamma and others, (2004) 8 SCC 517, has wrongly been applied by this Court because the said judgement relates to a vehicle which did not have route permit whereas in the case in hand there was a route permit. There is a sharp distinction propounded by courts with regard to application of offending vehicle being without route permit and offending vehicle having valid permit but having violated route permit. It is also being averred that there are catena of judgements and violation of route permit is one thing which will not absolute insurance company from indemnifying insured.

5. Learned counsel for review petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a case titled as Mani Ram Aggarwal (deceased) through his LRs v. United India Insurance Company Limited reported in (2017) ACJ 1082 and stated that the said case/judgement is identical to the instant case. According to him, in the aforesaid judgement it has been observed that breach of route permit will not be a defence which will be available to Insurance Company. Mere fact that truck was being operated in State of Haryana, though it has route permit only for State of Rajasthan will not constitute violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy and it will not be available as defence to insurance company and that insurance company was bound to indemnify insured.

6. Learned counsel for review petitioner would also rely on a judgement passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as National Insurance Company Limited v. Paramjit Kaur and others report