Partly allowed

The United India Insurance Co. v. Kannammal

Madras HC2 Nov 2017CMA(MD)/1153/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai bench of Madras High Court held that an insurance company must pay the award under the 'pay and recover' principle even for Act-only policies covering occupants. The interest rate was reduced to 7.5% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to deposit modified award amount with 7.5% interest; entitled to recover amount from vehicle owner via execution.

The United India Insurance Co. Vs Kannammal — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.11.2017 CORAM :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶4

C.M.A.(MD)No.1153 of 2016 and C.M.P.(MD) Nos.10353 and 10354 of 2016

¶5

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Jeeva Jothi Building, Salai Road, Dindigul Town, Dindigul District. ... Appellant/4^th Respondent Vs. 1Kannammal 2.Balaji 3.Minor Aparna 4.Minor Saranya ... Respondents/Petitioners (RR3 and 4 are represented by their mother and natural guardian 1^st respondent) 5.Jennifer ... 5^th Respondent/1^st Respondent 6.Pavithra ... 6^th Respondent/2^nd Respondent 7.Minor Ruthra ... 7^th Respondent/3^rd Respondent (R7 represented by her mother and natural guardian 5^th respondent)

¶6

Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.503 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District & Sessions Court, Dindigul.

¶7

For Appellant : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai For Respondent : Mr.R.Pandimaharaja for R5

¶8

JUDGMENT

¶9

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶10

2.The insurance company has challenged the impugned award on the ground of liability. The deceased had travelled as an occupant in a private car. The vehicle had only Act policy coverage. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is that the insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner against any loss occurring in view of the death or injury to the occupant. This is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ because no extra premium was paid for the occupant of the car. This issue is no longer res-integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in

¶11

¶12

the decision reported in 2017(1) TN MAC 289 (SC) - Manura Khatun and Ors. Vs.Rajesh Kr.Singh and Ors. has held that even in such cases, the insurer is liable to satisfy the award in the first instance. Pay and recover principle is applicable in such cases. Therefore, the appellant is directed to satisfy the award. Thereafter, the appellant is at liberty to recover the paid amount from the vehicle owner by filing execution proceedings in the very same proceedings. The Tribunal had awarded 9% interest. The same is reduced to 7.5% per annum. Therefore, the award dated 26.03.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.503 of 2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District & Sessions Court, Dindigul is modified.

¶13

3.The appellant insurance company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and costs, from the date of petition till the date of realization, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, less the amount already deposited, if any. Thereafter, the appellant is entitled to recover the paid amount from the vehicle owner by filing execution petition in the very same proceedings. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw their share as apportioned by the Tribunal, less the amount already withdrawn by them, if any, by filing proper application before the Tribunal.

¶14

4.This civil miscellaneous appeal stands partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶15

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶16

/True Copy/

¶17

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶18

¶19

The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dindigul.

¶20