Supreme Court agrees to consider modifying 2017 order to insurance companies not to insure vehicles without valid PUC certificates

Satya Prakash

New Delhi, May 13

Noting that a right balance needed to be struck pollution under control (PUC) norms and third party insurance, the Supreme Court on Monday agreed to consider modifying its 2017 order to insurance companies not to insure a vehicle that didn’t have valid PUC certificate.

“Prima facie, we are of the view that a right balance will have to be struck for ensuring that vehicles remain compliant with PUC norms but, at the same time, all vehicles must have third party insurance,” a Bench led by Justice AS Oka while dealing with a plea seeking modification of the top court’s August 10, 2017 order linking valid PUC with vehicles insurance.

The Bench asked solicitor General Tushar Mehta and amicus curiae Aparajita Singh to come up with a solution so that appropriate modifications could be made to the 2017 order. It posted the matter for further hearing on July 15.

Mehta, representing the General Insurance Council, pointed out that under sections 146 and 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it was compulsory to have a third party insurance. While section 146 of the Act deals with necessity for insurance against third party risk, section 147 pertains to requirements of policies and limits of liability.

Mehta said according to the August 2017 order, unless there was a valid PUC certificate, third party insurance will not be given by insurance companies.

“What happens is, for want of PUC, 55 per cent vehicles as per our survey are uninsured… 55 per cent of the vehicles, as per the survey conducted by the Government of India, are uninsured meaning thereby if they meet with an accident, the victims do not get the compensation,” he submitted.

Maintaining that PUC norms must be complied with and strictest possible norms should be there, Mehta suggested that if a vehicle did not have a valid PUC, it should not be given petrol.

“A balance has to be struck between both… One is that there has to be pollution control; and secondly, if so many vehicles remain without third party insurance, in case of an accident, there is a serious problem,” the Bench said.

Mehta pointed out that in case of an accident, the owner of a vehicle may not have the money to pay even if the suit is decreed while in case of an insurance company, the company was bound.

The amicus curiae said this issue can be referred to the Commission of Air Quality Management (CAQM).