Case Note & Summary
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. appealed against the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), North Goa, Panaji, dated 18.11.2008, which partly allowed the claim of respondent no.1 (original claimant) and awarded ₹62,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till final payment, holding the insurer, owner, and driver jointly and severally liable. The claimant had earlier received ₹50,400/- from his own insurance company under a comprehensive policy as full and final settlement for the damage to his vehicle. The insurer argued that the claimant was not entitled to any further compensation as he had already settled his claim. The court examined whether a claimant who has accepted a full and final settlement from his own insurer can maintain a claim against the opposite insurer. The court held that the claimant, by accepting the settlement, had exhausted his remedy and could not seek double recovery. The principle of subrogation would apply, and the claimant cannot claim again for the same loss. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the MACT award, and dismissed the claim petition. The court did not award costs.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Claim for Compensation - Full and Final Settlement - Bar on Further Claim - Claimant received ₹50,400/- from his own insurer under a comprehensive policy as full and final settlement for damage to his vehicle - He then filed a claim before MACT against the owner, driver, and insurer of the opposite vehicle - The MACT awarded ₹62,000/- with interest - Held that once the claimant accepted the settlement as full and final, he cannot pursue a separate claim for the same damage, as it would amount to double recovery and is contrary to the principle of subrogation (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a claimant who has received full and final settlement from his own insurer under a comprehensive policy is entitled to claim compensation from the insurer of the opposite vehicle for the same damage.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 18.11.2008 passed by the learned MACT, North Goa, Panaji, in Claim Petition No. 14/2006 is set aside. The claim petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Full and final settlement under own insurance policy bars further claim against tortfeasor's insurer
- Principle of subrogation
- Double recovery not permitted
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988 Section 165
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (08) 137
First Appeal No.203 of 2009
Shri U. R. Timble and Ms. Y. Mandrekar for the appellant, Shri R. G. Ramani for respondent no.1
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Mr. Vijay Priyolkar and Mr. Santosh Sudhakar Parulekar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against judgment and award of MACT in a motor accident claim for compensation for damage to vehicle.
Remedy Sought
The appellant insurer sought to set aside the MACT award and dismiss the claim petition.
Filing Reason
The claimant had already received full and final settlement from his own insurer, but MACT awarded further compensation against the appellant insurer.
Previous Decisions
MACT, North Goa, Panaji, dated 18.11.2008, awarded ₹62,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till final payment, holding the insurer, owner, and driver jointly and severally liable.
Issues
Whether the claimant is entitled to claim compensation from the opposite insurer after accepting full and final settlement from his own insurer.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant insurer argued that the claimant had raised a claim with his own insurance company and the claim was settled at ₹50,400/- as full and final settlement, and therefore the claimant was not entitled to any further amount from them.
The respondent claimant argued for the compensation awarded by MACT.
Ratio Decidendi
A claimant who has accepted a full and final settlement from his own insurer under a comprehensive policy cannot maintain a separate claim for the same damage against the insurer of the opposite vehicle, as it would amount to double recovery and is contrary to the principle of subrogation.
Judgment Excerpts
The insurer aggrieved by the said judgment and award, has challenged the same in this appeal on grounds that the Claims Tribunal erred in law as well as on facts while passing the impugned judgment.
The Claims Tribunal failed to appreciate that the claim was settled at ₹50,400/- by the insurer of the claimant as the value of the damage caused to his vehicle was assessed in the same amount and there was no question of granting any additional compensation to the claimant.
Procedural History
The claimant filed Claim Petition No. 14/2006 before MACT, North Goa, Panaji. The MACT passed judgment and award on 18.11.2008 partly allowing the claim. The insurer filed First Appeal No.203 of 2009 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The High Court reserved judgment on 31 July 2018 and pronounced on 9 August 2018.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 165
