CASE TITLE:
A Banu Prakash Vs Thimma Setty & Others
ḌATE OF ORDER:
1st September 2022
JUDGES:
Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
PARTIES:
Appellant: A BANU PRAKASH
Respondent: THIMMA SETTY & Others
SUBJECT
According to the Karnataka High Court, when dealing with the principle of pay and recovery, the consideration should be protecting the statutory rights of the third party persons who are victims of the motor accidents and it is immaterial whether the owner has preferred an appeal or challenged the claim.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
The Motor Vehicles Act
- Section 173 - Appeals
- Section 149 - Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks.
BRIEF FACTS
In this case, an appeal was filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the order of the Tribunal directing the respondents to pay compensation.
The primary contention of the claimant was that he had suffered injuries due to an accident cause by the rash and negligent driving of his driver, respondent number 1.
The medical expenses caused due to the accident were 30,000 and the claimant was unable to attend work for around 45 days and this resulted in loss of income for the claimant.
The owner contended that the Tribunal had imposed liability on him on the ground that he failed to prove that the driver had a valid license on the day of occasion. However, the driver did have a license and this was not considered by the Tribunal.
The insurance company contended that the Tribunal had correctly placed the liability on the owner. The vehicle was a private vehicle and the claimant was a passenger. Hence, the insurance company cannot be held liable.
It was contended by the claimant that as per Section 149(1), the insurance company can be held liable to pay compensation. To this, the insurance company contended that since the owner of the vehicle had challenged the order and denied the claim, the company cannot be held liable.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the third parties are entitled to claim under Section 149 where the claim is contested by the owner?
JUDGMENT ANALYSIS
- The Court primarily noted that the vehicle was used for hire/commercial purposes and therefore the Tribunal was correct in holding the owner liable and exonerating the insurance company.
- However, the Court held that the right of the third parties, in cases of motor accident, are provided statory protection and cannot be affected by the owner's conduct.
- The Motor Vehicles Act as well as the principle of pay and recovery are beneficial provisions.
- The Court applied the principle of pay and recovery to protect the statitroy rights of the victim.
CONCLUSION
According to the High Court, if the insurance company was right in claiming the defense, then it should first pay the victim and then claim the amount from the owner of the vehicle. The Court thus directed the insurance company to pay the concerned amount as determined by the Tribunal to the third party victim.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
