Will revisit order that made PUC mandatory for car insurance: SC

The Supreme Court on Monday decided to revisit its order of 2017 making pollution under control certificate (PUC) mandatory to renew third-party motor insurance policy

The Supreme Court on Monday decided to revisit its order of 2017 making pollution under control certificate (PUC) mandatory to renew third-party motor insurance policy.

Will revisit order that made PUC mandatory for car insurance: SC

The development came after the court was informed that after its order there are nearly 55% vehicles that do not have insurance cover, which is posing great difficulty for victims seeking settlement of compensation claims in road accidents.

“A right balance has to be struck that vehicles remain compliant with PUC norms and all vehicles must also have insurance cover,” a bench of justices AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said. The issue was brought to the court in an application filed by the General Insurance Council (GIC), the apex body of insurers that highlighted the problem in implementing the court’s August 10, 2018 passed in the MC Mehta case relating to pollution in Delhi.

“For want of PUC, 55% of vehicles are uninsured. Due to this situation, in the event of an accident, victims are made to suffer,” solicitor general Tushar Mehta appearing for GIC said. He urged the court to impose the strictest condition possible to ensure both issues are balanced.

“It is certain that PUC has to be there. But if so many vehicles remain without insurance, it is a problem,” the bench said. The court sought the help of amicus curiae and senior advocate Aparajita Singh to suggest how the 2017 order could be modified. The matter is posted for hearing on July 15.

Singh informed the court that the commission for air quality management for Delhi and adjoining areas (CAQM) can be consulted. The 2017 order was passed based on the recommendation of the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority, or EPCA, a statutory body.

“It is made clear that the insurance companies will not insure a vehicle unless it has a valid PUC certificate on the date of renewal of insurance policy,” the order of 2017 said. The GIC claimed the order was passed without hearing it or any insurance company. In February 2018, the council moved an application for modification that was rejected by the Supreme Court registry on the ground that the application sought review of the top court’s order.

Challenging this order of rejection by the registrar, the GIC urged the court to consider its application as it raised an issue of “serious public importance”. “The resultant effect of this court’s order was that if there is no PUC, there will be no third party insurance. This linking of PUC with annual insurance policy is creating problems. PUC is issued for six months and since they are not renewed, insurance policy cannot be renewed. This is affecting victims of accidents the most,” Mehta said.

Interestingly, when the 2017 order was passed, the ministry of road transport and highways did not support the recommendation of EPCA to have 100% linkage of PUC with insurance policy. The ministry had stated that the coverage of insurance cover for motor vehicles was low and any attempt to link PUC with insurance will be counterproductive. Instead, it had assured the court that the linkage of PUC centres with VAHAN database and other enforcement measures will ensure PUC compliance.