LexRAMA BAI versus M/S AMIT MINERALS THROUGH INCHARGE OFFICER/COMPETENT OFFICER & ANRS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 1599 : 2025 INSC 1162 Rama Bai v. M/s Amit Minerals Through Incharge Officer/Competent Officer & Anrs. (Civil Appeal No. 9669 of 2024) 24 September 2025 [K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court ought to have applied the doctrine of “pay and recover” requiring the Insurance Company to satisfy the amount of compensation to the claimant and subsequently allow the Insurance Company to recover the amount in accordance with law. Headnotes† Motor Vehicle Accident Claim – Victim-deceased died in a vehicular accident – Truck was driven by respondent no.1 – The said truck met with an accident with a tractor-trolley – Victim was a conductor in the truck – Claim petition – Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3 lakhs – It was found that respondent no.1-driver was not holding a valid licence on date of the accident – The High Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.5,33,600/- – While enhancing the compensation, the High Court fastened the liability to pay the amount on the respondent no.1-driver and respondent no.2- owner holding that respondent no.3-Insurance Company was entitled in law to avoid the liability – Correctness: Held: The High Court in the impugned judgment relied upon the decision in Ram Babu Tiwari to find that as per the specific provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, if the driver does not possess a valid and effective driving licence, it results in a breach of conditions of the insurance policy, exonerating the insurer from its liability – But while affirming the order of the High Court, absolving the liability for breach of conditions in the policy, this Court refused to interfere with orders of ‘pay and recover’ as directed by the High Court – In the above circumstances, going by the series of decisions of this Court, it is only proper that the insurer be directed to satisfy the award, which however can be recovered by the insurer from the insured-owner of the vehicle. [Paras 6.1, 7] * Author 1600 [2025] 9 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Case Law Cited Shamanna and Another v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others [2018] 9 SCR 486 : (2018) 9 SCC 650; Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others [2019] 8 SCR 986 : (2019) 7 SCC 217; Ram Babu Tiwari v. United India Insurance Company Limited and Others [2008] 11 SCR 725 : (2008) 8 SCC 165; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Others [2004] 1 SCR 180 : (2004) 3 SCC 297; National Insurance Company Limited v. Parvathneni and Another [2009] 13 SCR 1034 : (2009) 8 SCC 785; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yellamma [2008] 7 SCR 860 : (2008) 7 SCC 526; Samundra Devi v. Narendra Kaur [2008] 11 SCR 714 : (2008) 9 SCC 100; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Brij Mohan [2007] 6 SCR 843 : (2007) 7 SCC 56; New India Insurance Co. v. Darshana Devi [2008] (2) SCR 810 : (2008) 7 SCC 416 – referred to. List of Keywords Doctrine of ‘pay and recover’; Insurance company to satisfy amount of compensation; Determination of compensation; Vehicular accident; Valid license; Driver not holding valid license; Offending vehicle; Breach of policy conditions; Ineffective driving license; Insurer satisfying award. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9669 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 11.06.2020 of the High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur in MAC No. 876 of 2013 Appearances for Parties Adv. for the Appellant: Kaustubh Shukla. Advs. for the Respondents: Manish Kumar, Gopal Singh, Shivam Singh, Shubham Janghu. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment N.V. Anjaria, J. Preferred by the appellant-claimants, the present Appeal is directed against judgment and award dated 11.06.2020 of the High Court of [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1601 Rama Bai v. M/s Amit Minerals Through Incharge Officer/Competent Officer & Anrs. Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in M.A. (C) No. 876 of 2013, whereby the High Court enhanced the compensation payable to the appellant- claimant and absolved respondent No. 3 – Insurance Company from the liability to pay the amount, fastening the same on respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – driver and the owner respectively. 2. The case and grievance of the appellant is that the High Court ought to have applied the doctrine of “pay and recover” requiring the Insurance Company to satisfy the amount of compensation to the claimant and subsequently allow the Insurance Company to recover the amount in a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.