United India Insurance Company Limited v. Nand Kumar Sai

Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, Advocate : : Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board)

30.03.2026

In this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short the “MV Act”), the appellant-Insurance Company is calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned 2 award dated 23.01.2019, passed by the learned Claims Tribunal, whereby the claim application filed by the claimant has been allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.17,10,110/- have been awarded to him along with interest @ 6% PA from the date of claim till its actual realization, which amount is held to be payable by the appellant- Insurance Company herein.

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would make sole submission that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in law while applying the principle of pay and recovery under the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, to that extent the impugned award is liable to be modified.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would support the impugned award and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

In this regard, it would be appropriate to notice the decision of the Supreme Court in Shamanna and another v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others 1 whereby it has been held in Para-13 & 15 as under: “13. Since the reference to the larger Bench in Parvathneni case [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathneni, (2009) 8 SCC 785 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 568 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 943] has been disposed of by 1 (2018) 9 SCC 650 3 keeping the questions of law open to be decided in an appropriate case, presently the decision in Swaran Singh case [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] followed in Laxmi Narain Dhut [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 142] and other cases hold the field. The award passed by the Tribunal directing the insurance company to pay the compensation amount awarded to the claimants and thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in question, is in accordance with the judgment passed by this Court in Swaran Singh [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] and Laxmi Narain Dhut [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 142] cases. While so, in our view, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the award passed by the Tribunal directing the first respondent to pay and recover from the owner of the vehicle. The impugned judgment [Shamanna v. Laxman, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 6928] of the High Court exonerating the insurance company from its liability and directing the claimants to recover the compensation from the owner of the vehicle is set aside and the award passed by the Tribunal is restored.

So far as the recovery of the amount from the owner of the vehicle, the insurance company shall recover as held in the decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan, (2004) 13 SCC 224 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 148] wherein this Court held that : (SCC p. 226, para 8)

8. … For the purpose of recovering the same from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the executing court concerned as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer.

In the result, the impugned judgment [Shamanna v. Laxman, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 6928] of the High Court insofar as enhancement of the compensation to Rs 4 4,94,700 is concerned is affirmed. Insofar as direction of the impugned judgment directing the appellant claimants to recover the compensation from the owner of the vehicle is concerned, is set aside and the appeal is partly allowed. The first respondent insurance company shall pay the enhanced compensation to the appellant claimants along with the accrued interest and the insurance company shall recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. No costs.”

5. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the above principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court it is quite vivid that learned Claims Tribunal after full-fledged trial clearly recorded a finding in para-21 that since driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license to ply the same on the date of accident and, therefore, proceeded to apply the principle of pay and recover and directed the appellant-insurance company to firstly pay the amount of compensation to the claimant and thereafter recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle, which finding in the considered opinion of this Court is correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record. The findings of the Claims Tribunal is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. As such, I do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No cost. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if