[2009] 4 S.C.R. 786
A
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
V.
...
SEBASTIAN K. JACOB
Civil Appeal No. 17 48 of 2009
B
MARCH 20, 2009
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY,
JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Motor accident - Motor
c
Accident Tribunal awarding compensation - Insurance
company denying its liability on the ground that the claimant
was already compensated by another Insurance Company for
the same cause of action - Earlier payment not disputed -
Award upheld by High Court.:.. Insurance Company agreeing
to pay the difference between amount claimed and the amount
D already paid - Held: As the claim is for the whole amount and
not for the difference of amount, matter remitted to High Court
to reconsider the matter.
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1748
E of 2009
From the Judgement and Order dated 06.02.2006 of the
Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakumal in MFA No. 20 of
2003.
F
M.K. Dua, Kishore Rawat, Dhiraj, for the Appellants.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
G
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
H
786
...
-·
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. SEBASTIAN K.
787
JACOB STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
in favour of the respondent allowing him to realize a sum of A
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 8
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 C
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.
D
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.
E
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
F
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 G
and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration.
6. The appeal is allowed.
K.K.T.
Appeal allowed.
Lex