Disposed¶52

United India Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager (D.O.I.), v. Bikki Kumari

Patna HC10 Jul 2025MA/269/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

UIICL insurer appeal against MACT Patna award 13.10.2020 (CC 414/2018) of Rs. 56,91,080/- plus 6% p.a. interest; challenge to Tribunal's recovery direction against driver/owner (Resp. 5 & 6, Mini Bus BR1D5011); Patna High Court holds no separate suit needed — insurer may proceed before Executing Court per Baljit Kaur (2004) 2 SCC 1 and Nanjappan (2004) 13 SCC 224; Section 168 and Section 140 Motor Vehicles Act; appeal disposed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of; appellant-insurer given liberty to recover the awarded compensation from Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 (driver and owner of Mini Bus) by initiating a proceeding before the Executing Court without being required to file a separate suit. ¶52

United India Insurance Company Limited, through… — Motor Accident Claims | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the insurer-appellant, held liable by the Tribunal to pay compensation with liberty to recover the awarded amount from the driver and owner (Respondent Nos. 5 and 6), must file a separate suit for such recovery, or may instead initiate recovery proceedings before the Executing Court.

¶24

Court's answer

For recovering the compensation from the insured (Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, driver and owner of the Mini Bus), the appellant/Insurance Company is not required to file a suit and may recover the same from the insured by initiating a proceeding before the executive (Executing) court.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is granted to the appellant to initiate a proceeding before the concerned Executing Court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner had been the subject matter of determination before the Tribunal.

¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Ramesh Chand Malviya, J.), oral judgment dated 10-07-2025, disposing Miscellaneous Appeal No.269 of 2021 filed by United India Insurance Company Limited against the award dated 13.10.2020 of the MACT-cum-Additional District and Session Judge-XII, Patna in Claim Case No. 414 of 2018 (Rs. 56,91,080/- with 6% per annum interest from date of institution of the claim petition, excluding payments under Section 140 M.V. Act). Holding, considering the law established by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Baljit Kaur ((2004) 2 SCC 1) and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nanjappan ((2004) 13 SCC 224), that for recovering the compensation from the insured (Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, driver and owner of Mini Bus BR1D5011) the insurer is NOT required to file a separate suit and may initiate a proceeding before the concerned Executing Court as if the dispute between insurer and owner had been the subject matter of determination before the Tribunal; appeal disposed of accordingly, respondents' counsel having raised no objection to the right of recovery.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.269 of 2021

¶2

======================================================

¶3

United India Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager (D.O.I.), Times of India Building, Frazer Road, Patna.

¶4

... ... Appellant/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

Bikki Kumari, Wife of Late Sanjay Pandey, resident of Village-Rajkharsa, P.S. Mehendiya, District-Arwal.

¶7

Rajmani Devi, Wife of Dinesh Pandey, resident of Village-Rajkharsa, P.S. Mehendiya, District-Arwal.

¶8

Dinesh Pandey, son of Late Ram Lakhan Pandey, resident of VillageRajkharsa, P.S. Mehendiya, District-Arwal.

¶9

Samridhi Pandey, Daughter of Sanjay Pandey, resident of Village-Rajkharsa, P.S. Mehendiya, District-Arwal.

¶10

Rajendra Rai, son of Ramekbal Rai, Resident of Village-Farhada, P.S. Dighwara, District-Saran (Driver of the offending Mini Bus bearing Registration No. BR1D5011).

¶11

Sujit Kumar, son of Mithilesh Kumar Pandey, Resident of LIG H10, Kankarbagh, Patna. (Owner of the offending Mini Bus bearing Registration No. BR1D5011).

¶12

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance: For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kameshwar Singh, Advocate

¶13

======================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL JUDGMENT

¶15

Date: 10-07-2025

¶16

Heard Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, learned counsel for

¶17

the appellant and Mr. Kameshwar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶18

2. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 13.10.2020 passed by the Learned MACT-cum-Additional District and Session Judge-XII, Patna in Claim Case No. 414 of 2018 whereby the appellant is directed to pay Rs. 56,91,080/- with interest of 6% per annum from the

¶19

Patna High Court MA No.269 of 2021 dt.10-07-2025 2/8

¶20

date of institution of the claim petition excluding paid amount under Section 140 of M.V. Act within 2 months.

¶21

3. Learned counsel submits that the impugned judgment/award is bad in the eye of law and also bad in the present facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned judgment is against the established law. He also submitted that the appellant i.e., UIICL being insurer, has been directed by the MACT to pay compensation amount, i.e. Rs. 56,91,080/- along with 6% simple interest from date of the institution of the case within two months from receiving/production of copy of the order dated 13.10.2020 to claimants. Further direction has been given to the Appellant/OP No.3 UIICL to recover the awarded amount from Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the present appeal who are respondent 2^nd Set/OP Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of Mini Bus in accordance with law.

¶22

4. He further submitted that the appellant filed this appeal inter alia primarily and fundamentally on the ground that Learned MACT has given liberty to the Appellant/OP No.3 i.e., UIICL to recover the awarded amount from Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the present appeal who are respondent 2^nd Set/OP Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of Mini Bus in accordance with law which is contrary to the well settled

¶23

Patna High Court MA No.269 of 2021 dt.10-07-2025 3/8

¶24

principle of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of M/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Baljit Kaur And Ors reported in (2004) 2 SCC 1 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Shri Nanjappan And Ors reported in (2004) 13 SCC 224 . In both the cases it has specifically been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that for the purpose of such recovery, it would not be necessary for the insurer to file a separate suit but it may initiate a proceeding before the executing court 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.

¶25

5. It is further contended that the scope and purport of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in terms whereof it is not only entitled to determine the amount of claim as put forth by the claimant for recovery thereof from the insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle jointly or severally but also the dispute between the insurer on the one hand and the owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident inasmuch as can be resolved by the tribunal in such a proceeding.

¶26

6. Learned counsel submitted that the MACT without taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and material available on record in true and correct legal

¶27

Patna High Court MA No.269 of 2021 dt.10-07-2025

¶28

4/8

¶29

perspective decided Issue No. VII in two parts against the appellant in as much on one hand in paragraph no. 26 of the impugned judgment accepted the submission of the appellant but on another hand not adjudicated the same and hold therein that appellant is liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants and liberty given to the appellant to recover the same under due process of law.

¶30

7. Lastly, he submitted that as such in view of the aforesaid submission the impugned order may be set aside to the extent to recover the awarded amount from Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the present appeal who are respondent 2^nd Set/OP Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of Mini Bus in accordance with law. Further for the purpose of recovering the same from the insured Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the present appeal who are respondent 2^nd Set/OP Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of Mini Bus respectively, the insurer i.e., the appellant may not be directed to file a suit. The Appellant may be given liberty to initiate a proceeding before the concerned Executing Court 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. Before release of the amount to the insured, owner of the vehicle shall

¶31

Patna High Court MA No.269 of 2021 dt.10-07-2025

¶32

5/8

¶33

be issued a notice and he shall be required to furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the Executing Court shall take assistance of the concerned Regional Transport authority. The Executing Court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the insured, owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the Executing Court to direct realization by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle, the insured.

¶34

8. He further relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in;

¶35

i. M/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Baljit Kaur & Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 1. (Para 21 of Judgment):

¶36

“The upshot of the aforementioned discussions is that instead and in place of the insurer the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to satisfy the decree. The question, however, would be as to whether keeping in view the fact that the law was not clear so long such a direction would be fair and equitable. We do not think so. We, therefore, clarify the legal position which shall have prospective effect. The Tribunal as also the High Court had proceeded in terms of the decisions of this Court in Satpal Singh (supra). The said decision has been

¶37

Patna High Court MA No.269 of 2021 dt.10-07-2025

¶38

6/8

¶39

overruled only in Asha Rani (supra). We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be sub- served if the appellant herein is directed to satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant if not already satisfied and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. For the purpose of such recovery, it would not be necessary for the insurer to file a separate suit but it may initiate a proceeding before the executing court 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. We have issued the aforementioned directions having regard to the scope and purport of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in terms whereof it is not only entitled to determine the amount of claim as put forth by the claimant for recovery thereof from the insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle jointly or severally but also the dispute between the insurer on the one hand and the owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident inasmuch as can be resolved by the tribunal in such a proceeding.”

¶40

ii. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Shri

¶41

Nanjappan & Ors. (2004) 13 SCC 224 (Para 8 of Judgment:

¶42

“Therefore, while setting aside the judgment of the High Court we direct in terms of what has been stated in Baljit Kaur's case (supra) that the insurer shall pay the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal, about which there was no dispute raised, to the respondents-claimants

¶43

Patna High Court MA No.269 of 2021 dt.10-07-2025

¶44

7/8

¶45

within three months from today. 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 concerned Executing Court 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. Before release of the amount to the insured, owner of the vehicle shall be issued a notice and he shall be required to furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the Executing Court shall take assistance of the concerned Regional Transport authority. The Executing Court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the insured, owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the Executing Court to direct realization by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle, the insured. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.”

¶46

9. The learned counsel for the respondents

¶47

submitted that he has no objection on the point of right of recovery and the appellant is entitled to recover the compensation from the owner of the vehicle.

¶48

10. Having heard learned counsel for both the

¶49

Patna High Court MA No.269 of 2021 dt.10-07-2025

¶50

8/8

¶51

parties and considering the law established by Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard, for the purpose of recovering the compensation from the insured i.e., Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the present appeal who are respondent 2^nd Set/OP Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of Mini Bus respectively, the appellant/ Insurance Company is not required to file a suit and recover the same from the insured by initiating a proceeding before the executive court without being required to file a separate suit. The Appellant has liberty to initiate a proceeding before the concerned Executing Court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination before the Tribunal.

¶52

11. Accordingly, this appeal stands disposed

¶53

off.

¶54

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)

¶55

Mayank/-

¶56

AFR/NAFR	N/A
CAV DATE	N/A
Uploading Date	16.07.2025
Transmission Date	N/A

United India Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager (D.O.I.), v. Bikki Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager (D.O.I.), v. Bikki Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Guddu Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Veeru Rai @ Birbal Kumar Rai@ Birbal Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Banhu Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Sasamusa Panchayat Shramik Sahyog Samiti Ltd., Vs The Food Corporation of India

Dheeraj Jha Vs The State of Bihar

Govind Das @ Fodari Das Vs The State of Bihar