SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 48562

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.Anand Venkatesh, K.K.Ramakrishnan, JJ
Elavarasi – Appellant
Versus
Gopinathan – Respondent
C.M.A(MD)No.1065 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N.Sudhagar Nagaraj
For the Respondents: N.Shyllappakalyan

In cases of motor vehicle accidents where the driver lacks a valid driving license, the 'pay and recover' principle applies, requiring the insurance company to satisfy the compensation award first and then recover the amount from the vehicle owner.

Headnote:The appeal concerns an award passed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the liability fixation where the driver of the offending vehicle lacked a valid driving license. The court examined whether the insurance company should be held liable under the 'pay and recover' principle. The central issue was whether the Tribunal erred by not applying the 'pay and recover' principle in cases involving the absence of a valid driving license. The court relied on settled precedents, noting that in similar factual circumstances, the insurer is mandated to pay the compensation to the claimants and subsequently recover the amount from the insured owner. In the result, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the insurance company to deposit the entire compensation amount along with interest to the credit of the claim petition, with the claimants entitled to withdraw the same.

Table of Content
1. overview of the claimant's case and initial tribunal findings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. application of the 'pay and recover' principle due to invalid driving license. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. final directions regarding insurance deposit and withdrawal. (Para 11)

PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1973, to set aside the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special District Judge-II, Trichirappalli in M.C.O.P.No.102 of 2023 dated 30.04.2024.

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.)

This appeal has been filed by the claimants challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special District Judge -II, Tiruchirapalli in M.C.O.P.No. 102 of 2023 dated 30.04.2024.

2. The appellants are the claimants. The first appellant is the wife of the deceased, the second and third appellants are the children of the deceased and the fourth and fifth appellants are the parents of the deceased. The case of the appellants is that the deceased was a pedestrian standing on the road, at that point of time, the first respondent drove the two-wheeler in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the Apollo Hospital, Karur. An FIR came to be registered in Crime No 275 of 2022. It is under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed before this Tribunal.

3. The Tribunal, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the offending vehicle and the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving license.

4. Having rendered such finding, the Tribunal fixed the total compensation at Rs. 34,91,300/- under the following heads:

Head Amount
Loss of Income Rs.32,13,000/-
Spousal Consortium to the 1st appellant, the wife of the deceased Rs.48,400/-
Parental Consortium to the 2nd appellant, the minor son of the deceased Rs.48,400/-
Parental Consortium to the 3rd appellant, the minor son of the deceased Rs.48,400/-
Filial Consortium to the 4th appellant, the mother of the deceased Rs.48,400/-
Filial Consortium to the 5th appellant, the father of the deceased Rs.48,400/-
Loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,150/-
Total Rs.34,91,300/-

5. The above compensation was directed to be paid along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. However, considering the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle did not posses a valid driving license, the first respondent was directed to pay the compensation.

6. The claimants have filed the present appeal mainly on the ground that the first respondent did not possess a valid driving license and therefore, pay and recover should have been ordered to the Insurance Company.

7. This Court carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also the award passed by the Tribunal.

8. The ground that was taken by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is to the effect that the Tribunal should have ordered for pay and recover. The said ground is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in a batch of appeals in CMA. (MD).No.517 of 2025 etc, dated 01.06.2026. This Court is of the view that the Tribunal ought to have applied the principle of pay and recover. Consequently, the award passed by the Tribunal directing the first respondent to pay the compensation amount to the claimants is liable to be interfered by this court.

9. Insofar as the first ground that was raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the same is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in a batch of appeals in CMA.(MD).No.517 of 2025 etc, dated 01.06.2026, wherein, this Court h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top