Skip to main content

Doctrine of “Pay And Recover” In Motor Accident Claim Cases Still Holds

In Shamanna vs. Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., appeal came before the Supreme Court against the order of the Karnataka High Court revering the award passed by the Tribunal for “pay and recover” holding that the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation to the appellants/claimants. In this matter the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal had decided that the fault lay with the owner of the offending vehicle and directed the insurer to pay compensation to victim's family and recover the same from the insured who is the owner. On appeal the High Court referring to Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K.C. Subramanyam held that the discretion under Article 142 of the Constitution to direct the insurance company to make payment to the claimants and to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle is vested only with the Supreme Court,The High Court held that only the owner of the offending vehicle is liable to make the payment of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.

The Supreme Court on appeal decided that in the case of third party risks, as per the decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, the insurer had to indemnify the compensation amount payable to the third party and the insurance company may recover the same from the insured. Doctrine of "pay and recover" was considered by the Supreme Court in Swaran Singh case wherein
the Supreme Court examined the liability of the insurance company in cases of breach of policy condition due to disqualifications of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver and held that in case of third party risks, the insurer has to indemnify the compensation amount to the third party and the insurance company may recover the same from the insured. Elaborately considering the insurer's
contractual liability as well as statutory liability vis-a-vis the claims of third parties, the Supreme Court issued detailed guidelines as to how and in what circumstances, “pay and recover” can be ordered.

The Supreme Court considered the decision of Swaran Singh case in subsequent decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, wherein this Court held that “the decision in Swaran Singh case has no application to cases other than third party risks and in case of third party risks the insurer has to indemnify the amount and if so advised, to recover the same from the insured”. The same principle was reiterated in Prem Kumari v. Prahlad Dev and others.

In the present case, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had rejected the order of the trial court based on the reference to larger Bench made by the two-Judge Bench in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathneni which doubted the correctness of the decisions which in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India directing insurance company to pay the compensation amount even though insurance company has no liability to pay stating that if the insurance company has no liability to pay at all, then, it cannot be compelled by order of the court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to pay the compensation amount and later on recover it from the owner of the vehicle. However since  the reference to the larger bench in Parvathneni case has been disposed of by keeping the questions of law open to be decided in an appropriate case, presently the decision in Swaran Singh case followed in Laxmi Narain Dhut and other cases hold the field.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Supreme Court clarified on how to determine if an allegation of fraud falls under “Fraud Exception” to Arbitrability

In AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. vs HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED, the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal from the interlocutory judgment and order passed in the appeal under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Bombay High Court in a dispute between HSBC and Avitel India. HSBC had alleged that the Appellants had committed fraud by siphoning off the funds provided by them. As the agreement entered into by HSBC and the Appellants contained arbitration clause, HSBC approached the Singapore Arbitration Centre and the arbitration committee so formed executed award in favour of HSBC who filed application before the Bombay High Court for execution of the award. The Appellants contended objected to the award on various grounds and further argued that as fraud has been alleged, the dispute cannot be arbitrated.  The Supreme Court has held that “serious allegations of fraud” as a ground for exemption from arbitral proceedings arise only if either o...
Post a Comment
Read more