Supreme Court: 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

 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 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