Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2058 (MAD)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. K. Rajendran

2012-04-24

P.DEVADASS

body2012
Judgment : 1. Since both the appeals are connected on facts and on law they are tagged together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Rajendran, claimant in MCOP.No.5108 of 2008 and his wife Pushpavalli, Claimant in MCOP.No.5110 of 2003 have travelled in the Auto Ricksha belonging to the second respondent/John Sundaresan, which has been insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. Unfortunately, the couples got involved in a road accident, because of the negligent driving of the driver of John Sundaresan. The spouses have sought for compensation. The Tribunal awarded them a total compensation of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.43,000/- respectively with 7.5% interest p.a. The Tribunal conclusively came to the conclusion that the driver of auto ricksha was not holding effective driving license at the time of accident, however, directed the appellant to pay them the compensation amount. However, it did not fix liability on the vehicle owner. Aggrieved over this, the Insurance Company directed this appeal on this sole ground. 3. The responsibility on the Insurance company is to indemnify the insured. The Insurance Company comes to the rescue of the insured. It covers the risk. So far as the claimants are concerned, they are third parties. They are the suffers. Because of the driver of the vehicle either not possessing the license or possessing a fake license or learner's license, the third parties should not suffer. So, the courts came to their rescue by inventing the concept of pay and recover. It is based on the statutory scheme of compulsory insurance envisaged under the M.V.Act. The Insurance Company is doing business. It is nationalised. So, Courts takes care of their interest also. So, Courts started directing them to pay the quantified compensation amount to the claimants/third parties and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicles. But, based on the findings of the Tribunal itself, the Insurance Companies were enabled to execute the award without driving them to file a separate suit for the same. But, in doing so, there cannot be any deviation of the basic principle of insurance. The primary responsibility/liability to compensate the third parties is on the vehicle owner/insured and the Insurance Company/insurer indemnify him by paying the compensation amount, it covers the risk. 4. But, in doing so, there cannot be any deviation of the basic principle of insurance. The primary responsibility/liability to compensate the third parties is on the vehicle owner/insured and the Insurance Company/insurer indemnify him by paying the compensation amount, it covers the risk. 4. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that in this case the Tribunal has directed only the Insurance Company to pay the compensation, but, it did not directed the owner of the vehicle to pay the amount. So, it had fixed the primary liability on the company than the owner of the vehicle. This is not correct in law. 5. In the result, appellant shall deposit the compensation amounts as awarded by the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the claimants in both appeals are permitted to withdraw the amounts. The appellant can recover the said amounts from the insured/vehicle owner. For this purpose, it need not file a separate suit and it can initiate execution proceedings in the concerned Execution Court and in such Court, if need be, steps can be taken to attach the offending vehicle with the assistance of concerned Road Transport Authority also. Both the appeals are allowed as indicated above. No costs.