AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By this common order, Civil Revision Nos.141/2008 and 142/2008, M.A.Nos.1285/2008, 1290/2008, 1291/2008, and 1287/2008 are also being decided. All the above-mentioned cases have been filed against an award dated 11/08/2008 passed by Fourth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena.
Civil Revision No.140/2008 has been filed against award passed in MACC No.224/2007, Civil Revision No.141/2008 has been filed against the award passed in MACC No.227/2007, Civil Revision No.142/2008 has been filed against award passed in MACC No.226/2007, M.A.No.1285/2008 has been filed against award passed in MACC No.220/2007, M.A.No.1290/2008 has been filed against award passed in MACC No.221/2007, M.A.No.1291/2008 has been filed against award passed in MACC No.222/2007, and M.A. No.1287/2008 has been filed against the award passed in MACC No.223/2007.
Facts necessary for disposal of present appeals/revisions, in short, are that the offending tractor bearing No.MP-06-JA-4684 was owned by Puran Singh, and was being driven by Parimal, and was insured by appellant/insurance company.
It is the case of claimants that on 09/04/2007, the injured persons were going on a tractor-trolley bearing No.MP-06-JA-4684 for attending Nirar Mata ka Mela. As soon as, tractor reached near Kacchi Road, Banmor Ghati, driver of the tractor/Parimal by driving the tractor in a rash and negligent manner, turned the tractor ups and down, as a result, Munni Devi and Ramkali died because of grievous injuries sustained by them, and other persons sustained injuries. An FIR was lodged. The legal representatives of Munni Devi and Ramkali, as well as injured persons filed different claim cases. The Claims Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, granted compensation to claimants, however, after exonerating the insurance company, applied the principle of “pay and recover”.
It is submitted by counsel for applicant/appellant that injured as well as deceased were gratuitous passengers, therefore, when no premium was paid by the insured, then insurance company cannot be made liable to pay and recover.
To substantiate its submission, counsel for applicant has relied upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Habib Khan and Others reported in 2025 (2) MPLJ 482.
Considered the submissions made by counsel for applicant/appellant.
The question as to whether the insurance company in the case of gratuitous passengers can be saddled with the liability of pay and recover, is no more res integra.
The Supreme Court in the case of Sunita and Others Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and Others by judgment dated 17/07/2025 passed in SLP (Civil) No.1412/2024 has held as under:-
“11.Then, the question which would arise is as to whether the liability could have been fastened upon the Insurer or not. In our considered view, not so, solely for the reason that the risk stood not covered, as no premium was paid.
12.The next question which arises for our consideration is whether the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the compensation amount to the claimant-appellant and, thereafter, recover the same from the driver and owner of the vehicle.
13.Adverting to the facts in hand, from a bare perusal of the record, it is borne that the vehicle in question was insured with “Liability Only Policy” and no premium was paid to cover the driver, owner, or a gratuitous passenger travelling therein. However, even then, in our view, the Courts below erred in holding that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimant-appellants, for the principle of “Pay and Recover” ought to have been invoked. As such, we are inclined to interfere with the above findings of the Courts below.
14.We must advert to the exposition of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur. The deceased therein was travelling as a gratuitous passenger, and due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, lost his life. The Insurance Company was directed to satisfy the amount awarded by the Courts below and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, as the premium was not paid by the owner of the vehicle towards gratuitous passenger.
15.The above position has been followed by this Court in Anu Bhanvara v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., 8 wherein the injured person was travelling as a gratuitous passenger and was not covered under the Insurance Policy, the driver and owner of the vehicle was held liable for payment of compensation amount. This Court applied the principle of “Pay and Recover” and directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount and, thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
16.The aforementioned principle was adopted by this Court in various judgments of this Court in Amrit Lal Sood v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C.M. Jaya; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Upendra Rao; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vimal Devi; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul; Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh; and Puttappa v. Rama Naik.
17.Applying the above expositions of law, the Courts below ought to have directed the Insurance Company to indemnify the amount and thereafter recover the same.
18.Therefore, in light of the attending facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal and recover the same only from the owner of the offending vehicle.”
Thus, it is clear that even in a case of gratuitous passengers, the insurance company can be fastened with the liability of pay and recover.
Since no illegality was committed by Claims Tribunal by applying the principle of “pay and recover”, accordingly, no case is made out warranting interference.
Ex consequenti, award dated 11/08/2008 passed by Fourth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena in MCC Nos.220/2007, 221/2007, 222/2007, 223/2007, 224/2007, 226/2007, and 227/2007 are hereby affirmed.
Civil Revision Nos.140/2008, 141/2008, and 142/2008, and M.A. Nos.1285/2008, 1290/2008, 1291/2008, and 1287/2008 are hereby dismissed.