Just a moment...
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the insurer could avoid liability on the ground that the vehicle carried temporary registration at the time of accident while the dealer had obtained insurance on the basis of a trade certificate, and whether the proposed purchaser had become the owner before the accident.
Analysis: The vehicle was in the dealer's possession when the accident occurred. The statutory scheme distinguishes between temporary registration and a trade certificate, and a dealer in possession of a vehicle is expected to keep it insured until delivery. The court applied the Motor Vehicles Act and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules to hold that the insurer could not deny coverage merely because the vehicle bore temporary registration, so long as the trade certificate policy was in force and the vehicle had not been delivered to the purchaser. On ownership, the court applied the Sale of Goods Act and held that property had not passed to the proposed purchaser because the sale was not complete and the necessary steps for delivery and acceptance had not been concluded.
Conclusion: The insurer remained liable, the dealer's policy cover was valid, and the proposed purchaser had not become the owner before the accident.