| |
CDJ 2026 MHC 4943
|
| Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras |
| Case No : C.M.A. No. 1016 of 2024 & C.M.A. No. 1117 of 2024 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH |
| Parties : Prabhu & Another Versus Thiyaneswharan & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Appellants: C. Santhosh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, C.E. Pratap, R2, R. Rajesh, Advocates. |
| Date of Judgment : 01-07-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Subject
|
| Summary :- |
Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations / Sections Mentioned:
None
Catch Words:
pay and recovery principle, compensation, insurance, civil miscellaneous appeals
Summary:
The husband and wife filed independent claim petitions (M.C.O.P. Nos.267 & 268 of 2017) for injuries sustained in a road accident caused by a rash-driving car. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.6,82,944 and Rs.44,186 respectively, with interest, but held that the insurance company was not liable because the driver lacked a valid licence, directing the vehicle owner to pay. The appellants appealed, invoking the pay‑and‑recovery principle as endorsed in *National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh* (2004). The Court held that the principle applies, modifying the award so that the insurance company must pay the compensation and interest, recoverable from the vehicle owner. The Tribunal’s other directions remain unchanged. The appeals are allowed without costs.
Conclusion:
Appeal Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer CMA Nos.1016 & 1117 of 2024: To enhance and modify the award made in M.C.O.P.No.267 of 2017 dated 04.10.2023 on the file of the Special District Judge (To deal with MCOP Cases) Erode by directing the 2nd Respondent Insurance Company to pay the award amount to the Appellant herein.
CMA No. 1117 of 2024: To enhance and modify the award made in M.C.O.P.No.268 of 2017 dated 04.10.2023 on the file of the Special District Judge (To deal with MCOP Cases), Erode by directing the 2nd Respondent Insurance Company to pay the award amount to the Appellant herein and thus render justice.)
Common Judgment:
1. The issue involved in both the appeals are common and hence taken up together, heard and disposed of through this common judgment.
2. The appellants, who are the husband and wife, are the claimants. They filed independent claim petitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.267 & 268 of 2017 on the ground that on 11.04.2016, the husband was riding the two-wheeler and the wife was travelling as a pillion rider from Coimbatore to Erode and at about 4.00 p.m., when the two-wheeler was nearing Mettukadai Naal road, the offending vehicle, which was a car, was driven in a rash and negligent manner and it hit the two-wheeler, as a result of which, both the husband and wife sustained grievous injuries. An FIR came to be registered against the driver of the car in Crime No.171 of 2016. It is under these circumstances, independent claim petitions came to be filed before the Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the car.
4. Having rendered the above finding, the Tribunal also fixed the total compensation at Rs.6,82,944/- in so far as M.C.O.P.No.267 of 2017 and a sum of Rs.44,186/- in so far as M.C.O.P.No.268 of 2017 and this amount was directed to be paid with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
5. The Tribunal rendered a finding that since the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to pay the compensation and accordingly directed the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation.
6. These appeals have been filed seeking modification of the common order passed by the Tribunal by applying the principle of pay and recovery.
7. This Court heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.
8. The issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the Judgement of the Hon’ble Apex court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh and Others reported in 2004 (3) SCC 297. The Apex Court has categorically held that in a case of this nature, the pay and recovery principle has to be applied and the compensation has to be paid by the Insurance Company and it can be recovered from the owner of the vehicle.
9. In the light of the above discussion, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the effect that the second respondent Insurance Company shall pay the compensation amount fixed by the Tribunal along with accrued interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum to the appellants within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such payment, the amount can be recovered from the owner of the vehicle namely the first respondent by directly filing an Execution Petition. The other directions issued by the Tribunal with regard to the mode of payment of compensation remains unaltered.
10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed with the above terms. No costs.
|
| |