Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MVC No.3616/2020. The claimants, the children of the deceased Smt. Manjula, sought enhancement of compensation and challenged the exoneration of the insurer, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., from liability. The accident occurred on 28.09.2019, when respondent No.1, Mr. Manjunatha, the owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-13/EH-3214, was riding with his wife, the deceased, as pillion. Due to his rash and negligent riding, the pillion rider fell down, sustained injuries, and succumbed. At the time of the accident, respondent No.1 did not possess a valid driving license, and a charge sheet was filed against him under Sections 279, 304A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.25,56,120 with interest at 6% per annum but held that the owner, respondent No.1, was liable to pay, exonerating the insurer on the ground of breach of policy conditions. The claimants contended before the High Court that the Tribunal ought to have applied the principle of 'pay and recover', directing the insurer to pay compensation and then recover it from the owner. The insurer argued that since the owner-cum-driver is the father of the claimants, the pay and recover principle could not apply, and the compensation awarded was just. The High Court, after perusing the impugned judgment, noted that in cases where the deceased or injured is a third party and there is a violation of policy conditions, a pay and recovery order is passed. However, in the instant case, the rash and negligent driving was alleged against the father of the claimants and husband of the deceased. The liability to pay compensation was saddled on the owner, who is the father of the claimants. The Court held that the order of pay and recover cannot be applied because the claimants, being children of respondent No.1, would have to recover the compensation from their father. Considering these aspects, the Court found no grounds to admit the appeal and dismissed it, thereby upholding the Tribunal's decision exonerating the insurer and not enhancing the compensation.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles - Liability of Insurer - Pay and Recover Principle - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 149, 173(1), 3, 181 - The accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the owner, who was the husband of the deceased and father of the claimants; he did not hold a valid driving license at the time, constituting a breach of policy conditions. The Court held that since the owner/driver is the father of the claimants, directing the insurer to pay and recover from the owner would not serve justice as the claimants would have to recover compensation from their father; hence, the insurer is exonerated and liability is on the owner. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation on the principle of pay and recover when the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving license and is the father of the claimants?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the order of pay and recover cannot be applied where the owner-driver is the father of the claimants, and upheld the exoneration of the insurer. The compensation awarded was not enhanced.
Law Points
- pay and recover principle not applicable when owner-driver is father of claimants
- breach of policy conditions due to lack of driving license
- insurer exonerated
- owner solely liable
