An insurer remains liable under the 'pay and recovery' principle for policies issued prior to the 2019 amendment, as contractual obligations and liability criteria are determined according to the law prevalent at the time of policy issuance, regardless of the accident date.

JUDGMENT :

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

1.C.M.A(MD)No.747 of 2025 has been filed as against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.1647 of 2023 dated 10.03.2025 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Special District Court to deal with MCOP Cases, Madurai, thereby awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.31,03,672/- in favour of the claimants and directed the appellant herein to pay the entire compensation and then recover the same from the third respondent herein/owner of the vehicle.

2.C.M.A(MD)No.753 of 2025 has been filed as against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.1648 of 2023 dated 10.03.2025 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Special District Court to deal with MCOP Cases, Madurai, thereby awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.1,06,000/- in favour of the claimants and directed the appellant herein to pay the entire compensation and then recover the same from the second respondent herein/owner of the vehicle.

3.For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their status / ranking in C.M.A(MD)No.747 of 2025.

4.In both cases, the claimants filed claim petitions on the ground that, on 19.08.2022, at about 20.20 hours in Mudukulathar, near the Marketing Society building, the deceased and the injured were standing on the northern side of the road when the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-65-BX-3376 came from western side towards eastern side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and the injured. Due to the sudden impact, both sustained multiple grievous injuries. Suresh Kumar died due to the injuries sustained and the claimant/Kannan, was treated as an outpatient till 04.09.2022. Thereafter, he was admitted at the Government Medical College Hospital, Ramnad as an inpatient from 05.09.2022 and was discharged on 20.09.2022.

5.The appellant, who is being the insurer of the third respondent's vehicle, filed a counter stating that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, but solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased. Further, the third respondent's rider of the motorcycle did not possess a valid licence and as such, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation.

6.In order to prove their claim, they had examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked Exs.P1 to P15. On the side of the respondents, they examined R.W.1 and R.W.2 and marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3 and also marked Ex.C.1.

7.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the vehicle, which was insured with the appellant, caused the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider. As such, the appellant, being the insurer of the vehicle, is liable to pay compensation. Although the driver of the third respondent did not possess a valid driving license, the Tribunal awarded compensation payable by the appellant, and thereafter, the appellant can recover the same from the third respondent. Aggrieved by the same, both appeals have been filed by the insurer of the third respondent's vehicle.

8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that after the amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act in 2019, the proviso clause under Section 150 was deleted, and as such, there is no question of pay and recovery. He further pointed out that the proviso to Section 149 was also deleted in the amendment, and therefore, there