National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Sebastian K.Jacob
- SCC(2009) 4 SCC 778
- Neutral2009 INSC 379
- AIRAIR 2009 SC Supp 2271
- SCR[2009] 4 SCR 786
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a claimant in a motor accident case has already received compensation from one insurer for the same accident and cause of action, the question whether the claimant is entitled to claim further compensation from another insurer for the same loss requires consideration of whether the principle against double recovery bars such a claim. The High Court's decision upholding an award without addressing the fact that compensation had already been settled and paid by another insurer for the same accident constitutes failure to consider a material aspect of the case, warranting remission for fresh consideration of that issue.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
National Insurance Co. Ltd. ....Appellant
Versus
Sebastian K. Jacob ....Respondent
JUDGMENT
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The controversy lies within a very narrow compass. The appellant had filed appeal before the Kerala High Court questioning the correctness of a judgment rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thalassery. The award was passed in favour of the respondent allowing him to realize a sum of Rs.24,033/- with interest with proportionate cost from the driver, owner and present appellant jointly and severally payable by the present appellant.
According to the appellant, the insurer is not liable to make the payment since the claimant is already compensated by another Insurance Company by paying Rs.21,700/- for the same cause of action consequent to the same accident. Therefore, it was submitted that the respondent was not entitled to double payment of compensation. The High Court did not accept the plea and upheld the award of MACT.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in respect of the very same claim, the matter was settled by another Insurance Company. It was accepted by the claimant that he had settled his claim with the insurer of the jeep. But according to him that is of no consequence and did not debar him from making a claim under the statutory liability against the tortfeasor.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there cannot be double benefit in respect of the same accident. The claimant had accepted that he had settled the matter and received the money in respect of the jeep in question. There was no scope for granting a further relief.
4. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent.
2
5. It conceded that if there is difference of amount the appellant has to pay the same, but that is not the case in the present scenario. The claimant claims the whole amount. The earlier payment is not disputed. In fact, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has clearly accepted that the vehicle collided with the stage carriage on 13.7.1995 and the damage claim was settled for Rs.21,700/- on 6.12.1995. The High Court does not appear to have considered this aspect in the proper perspective. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the High court and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration.
6. The appeal is allowed.
........................................J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
..........................................J.
(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)
New Delhi, March 20, 2009
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free