Insurance Company should invoke principle of pay and recover if driver of vehicle carrying hazardous goods was not having proper license to drive that vehicle

    0
    1
    ADVERTISEMENT

     In this case, the High Court had set aside the

    award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

    SPONSORED

    stating that respondent No. 2, at the relevant time,

    was not having a proper license to drive the vehicle

    carrying hazardous goods and, in such circumstances,

    the insurance company cannot be fastened with the

    liability of payment of the award amount.

    The only issue for consideration is as to

    whether the High Court was right in refusing to adopt

    the usual procedure of pay and recover in cases of

    motor accident claims.

    Considering the facts of the case, we are of the

    view that the High Court should have asked the

    respondent No.1 – Insurance Company to pay the

    appellants – claimants, with liberty to recover it

    from respondent No. 2 – owner of the vehicle which

    caused the accident in the execution proceedings.

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

    CIVIL APPEAL [C] NO. /2025

    [@ SLP [C] NO.3033/2024]

    MANTU MAHATO & ORS. Vs THE NATIONAL INSURANCE  COMPANY LTD. & ANR. 

    Dated: FEBRUARY 03, 2025.

    Leave granted.

    In this case, the High Court had set aside the

    award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

    stating that respondent No. 2, at the relevant time,

    was not having a proper license to drive the vehicle

    carrying hazardous goods and, in such circumstances,

    the insurance company cannot be fastened with the

    liability of payment of the award amount.

    The only issue for consideration is as to

    whether the High Court was right in refusing to adopt

    the usual procedure of pay and recover in cases of

    motor accident claims.

    Considering the facts of the case, we are of the

    view that the High Court should have asked the

    respondent No.1 – Insurance Company to pay the

    appellants – claimants, with liberty to recover it

    from respondent No. 2 – owner of the vehicle which

    caused the accident in the execution proceedings.

    In such view of the matter, the impugned order

    stands set aside. Consequently, a direction is issued to the

    respondent No.1-insurance company to make the payment

    and, thereafter, recover it from respondent No.2, who

    is the owner of the vehicle which caused the

    accident, against whom the liability has been

    fastened.

    The appeal stands allowed, accordingly.

    Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

    disposed of

    ……………….J.

    [M.M. SUNDRESH]

    ……………….J.

    [RAJESH BINDAL]

    NEW DELHI;

    FEBRUARY 03, 2025.

    Print Page



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here