Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arose from the dismissal of a claim petition filed by the appellant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mapusa. The appellant, an advocate, owned a Ford Escort car which was damaged in a road accident on 13 November 2001. The accident occurred when a motorcycle driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3, came from the opposite direction on a ‘No Entry’ road and collided with the appellant’s car. The appellant incurred repair expenses of Rs.61,465/- and received Rs.48,206/- from his own insurer, New India Assurance Company Limited. He then filed a claim petition seeking the balance amount of Rs.13,259/- along with damages for mental torture and loss of use, totaling Rs.21,741/-. The tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Relying on the decision in Nitin Transport v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, the tribunal held that since the appellant had accepted payment from his insurer in full and final settlement, he could not claim any further amount from the respondents. Consequently, the claim petition was dismissed. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present first appeal before the High Court. The appellant’s counsel argued that the claim was based on tortious liability and the respondents could not escape liability merely because the appellant had received partial reimbursement from his own insurer. It was contended that there was no evidence of full and final settlement, and the Nitin Transport case was distinguishable as it involved an admission of settlement. The respondent insurer, on the other hand, supported the tribunal’s order, arguing that the payment was in full and final settlement, that a ‘knock for knock agreement’ between insurers barred the claim, and that the evidence did not establish the repair expenditure. The High Court framed the point for determination: whether the tribunal was justified in refusing the balance repair claim. On analysis of the evidence, the Court noted that the finding of rash and negligent driving by respondent no.1 was unchallenged. The appellant had produced the workshop invoice and receipt for Rs.61,465/-, and the accounts officer of the repair workshop confirmed the payment. The Court found no suggestion in the cross-examination of the appellant or the workshop witness that the amount was less than claimed, or that the insurance receipt was in full and final settlement. The receipt itself did not contain any such endorsement. The evidence of the insurer’s witness (RW2) was unreliable as he was not from the appellant’s insurance company and had no personal knowledge of the settlement terms. Moreover, he admitted that insurers do not always reimburse the full claim. Accordingly, the Court held that there was no full and final settlement. Distinguishing the Nitin Transport case, the Court observed that in that judgment, the claimant had expressly admitted a final settlement with the insurer, whereas in the present case, no such admission existed. The Court thus concluded that the appellant was entitled to recover the balance repair cost from the respondents, as the tortfeasor’s liability was not extinguished by partial payment from the claimant’s own insurer. The appeal was allowed, the tribunal’s award set aside, and the respondents were directed to pay the sum of Rs.13,259/- with interest.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Tortious Liability - Balance Repair Costs After Partial Insurance Payment - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The appellant car owner, after an accident caused by respondent's negligence, received Rs.48,206/- from his own insurer but claimed the balance Rs.13,259/- from the tortfeasor. The tribunal dismissed the claim on the ground of full and final settlement. On appeal, the High Court held that there was no evidence of full and final settlement; mere receipt of partial payment does not bar claim for balance. The Nitin Transport case distinguished as there the claimant had admitted final settlement. Held that the appellant is entitled to recover the balance amount with interest (Paras 7-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing the claim for the balance amount of Rs.13,259/- incurred for the repairs of the motor vehicle.
Law Points
- tortious liability for vehicle damage
- receiving partial insurance payment does not amount to full and final settlement
- knock for knock agreement between insurers does not bar claim for balance amount
- tortfeasor liable for unrecovered damages
