National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sebastian K. Jacob
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1748 of 2009
[Arising out of SLP (C) No.12621/2007]
[Arising out of SLP (C) No.12621/2007]
Petitioner: National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Respondent: Sebastian K. Jacob
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1748 of 2009
[Arising out of SLP (C) No.12621/2007]
[Arising out of SLP (C) No.12621/2007]
Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat & Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 20, 2009
Head Note:
Accident Claims
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs. 24033 with interest, to be realised from driver, owner and appellant-insurance company – Payment of Rs. 21,700/- already made by another insurance company – Contention that appellant is not liable and respondent cannot claim double compensation – High Court dismissing appeal – Earlier payment not disputed. Held 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. High Court didnot properly consider this fact and hence its order is set aside. Matter remitted back for fresh consideration. (Para 5)
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs. 24033 with interest, to be realised from driver, owner and appellant-insurance company – Payment of Rs. 21,700/- already made by another insurance company – Contention that appellant is not liable and respondent cannot claim double compensation – High Court dismissing appeal – Earlier payment not disputed. Held 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. High Court didnot properly consider this fact and hence its order is set aside. Matter remitted back for fresh consideration. (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
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 tort feasor. 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.
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.
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 tort feasor. 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.
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.
