Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Main Point: Pay and recovery should not be granted in cases where accidents occurred after the 2019 amendment came into force on 01.04.2022. Several judgments emphasize that amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act, 2019, and related provisions operate prospectively and do not apply retrospectively to accidents occurring prior to their enforcement. For instance, the accident in question occurred on 16.6.2021, at a time when the amendment to Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act had not yet come into effect ["SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS SMT. KUNTI GOP - Chhattisgarh"]. Similarly, the amendment came into force on 01.04.2022 and cannot be applied retrospectively to bar claims arising out of accidents prior to that date ["SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS SMT. KUNTI GOP - Chhattisgarh"].
Main Point: Amendments deleting or modifying the 'pay and recovery' provisions are prospective and do not affect claims arising before their enforcement. For example, the proviso was deleted by Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 2019, with effect from 01.04.2022, and in the absence of enabling provisions, tribunals are not entitled to order pay and recovery ["Branch Manager, M/s. SBI General Insurance Company Limited vs Muthulakshmi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 18069"]. Courts have consistently held that the benefit of subsequent amendments should not be denied to claimants for accidents that occurred prior to the notification ["MOHIT VS. SH VIJAY KUMAR MANDAL & ORS. - Delhi"].
Main Point: Claims related to accidents before the amendment date are not affected by the 2019 amendments, and pay and recovery orders should not be granted in such cases. As one judgment states, the accident occurred on 16.6.2021, well before the amendment came into force on 01.04.2022, and thus, the amendment cannot be applied retrospectively ["SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS SMT. KUNTI GOP - Chhattisgarh"]. Similarly, the amendment was inserted by an Act 32 of 2019, Sec. 53(iii) w.e.f. 1/9/2019, but the accident occurred earlier ["Aita Maya Gurung VS Ratna Kumar Pradhan - Sikkim"].
Analysis and Conclusion: Legal principles and judicial precedents confirm that the 2019 amendments, including those affecting pay and recovery, are prospective in nature. Therefore, in cases where the accident occurred before the amendment's effective date, pay and recovery should not be granted. Courts have clarified that amendments operate prospectively and not retrospectively unless expressly stated otherwise ["SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS SMT. KUNTI GOP - Chhattisgarh"]. Consequently, claims arising from accidents prior to 01.04.2022 should be decided without applying the amended provisions that restrict or negate pay and recovery orders.
In the realm of motor accident claims in India, the 'pay and recovery' principle has long been a cornerstone, ensuring swift compensation for victims while allowing insurers to recoup payments from vehicle owners in cases of policy breaches. But a pressing question arises: pay and recovery should not be granted in cases where accidents occurred after the 2019 amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? This debate stems from changes like the omission of the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 149 (now Section 150). Recent judicial interpretations provide clarity, affirming that this principle endures.
This post delves into the legal landscape, drawing from key judgments and legislative intent to explain why 'pay and recovery' remains viable post-amendments. Whether you're a claimant, vehicle owner, or insurer, understanding this can impact your approach to claims.
The 'pay and recovery' doctrine mandates that insurers pay compensation to accident victims promptly, then recover the amount from the insured owner if conditions like policy violations (e.g., invalid license or gratuitous passengers) apply. This balances victim relief with insurer protection.
Courts have consistently upheld this, even in nuanced scenarios:- For gratuitous passengers, insurers pay claimants first, as victims may struggle to recover from owners. The principle meets 'ends of justice' per precedents like United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Suresh K.K.United India Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Vajja Sesharatham - 2022 Supreme(AP) 677Kalluri Venkata Lakshumamma VS N. Gurivi Reddy - 2024 Supreme(AP) 140.- In license breach cases, tribunals must apply 'pay and recovery' rather than exonerate insurers outright, as per National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh (2004) Kalluri Venkata Lakshumamma VS N. Gurivi Reddy - 2024 Supreme(AP) 140.
The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, effective from 01.04.2022 in relevant aspects, aimed to bolster road safety, expedite claims, and enhance victim compensation. A key change: deletion of the proviso to Section 149(4), now Section 150.
Does this eliminate 'pay and recovery'? Judicial rulings say no. The main finding from analyzed documents is clear: The omission of the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 149 does not absolve the insurer from the obligation to pay compensation to claimants, nor does it eliminate the right to recover from the owner ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd vs Arti Devi - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2741.
Amendments focused on faster processes, like appointing Nodal Officers post-FIR and timelines under Sections 159-160 Gohar Mohammed VS Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation - 2023 2 Supreme 470. They emphasize prompt intimation and coordination but do not dismantle core insurer duties. The legislative intent behind the amendments was to enhance road safety and ensure prompt compensation, but they do not alter the fundamental 'Pay and Recover' principle ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd vs Arti Devi - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2741.
Prospective application is standard; amendments rarely retroact unless specified. Sources confirm: benefits like enhanced rates apply post-accident date, not retrospectively Sk. Asaruddin vs Santanu Ghosh - 2025 Supreme(Cal) 906NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS P. CHANDRAN - 2016 Supreme(Ker) 504. Similarly, here, no intent to abolish recovery rights post-2019.
This judgment directly addresses post-amendment accidents: Omission of the proviso does not negate insurer liability to pay initially or recover later, even after 01.04.2022. It reinforces that 'pay and recovery' stays intact.
Echoing this, the court notes amendments improve safety and compensation without negating primary obligations: The legislative changes do not negate the insurer's obligation to compensate victims initially, nor do they eliminate the right to recover from the owner ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd vs Arti Devi - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2741Branch Manager, M/s. SBI General Insurance Company Limited vs Muthulakshmi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 18069. No retrospective bar on post-amendment claims.
Other cases bolster this:- In gratuitous passenger scenarios, 'pay and recovery' applies as claimants can't easily realize amounts from owners United India Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Vajja Sesharatham - 2022 Supreme(AP) 677.- Tribunals erred by not directing payment first in policy breach cases; courts mandate recovery post-payment Kalluri Venkata Lakshumamma VS N. Gurivi Reddy - 2024 Supreme(AP) 140.
For accidents after amendments, courts affirm continuity: The 'Pay and Recover' principle remains intact for accidents post-01.04.2022 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd vs Arti Devi - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2741. No explicit abolition exists, and prospective amendments don't inherently void rights Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. VS Phuljheria Mussamat and Anothers - 2002 Supreme(Gau) 170Mohini Devi VS Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation - 2003 Supreme(Raj) 1062.
Contrastingly, pre-amendment accident claims don't get new benefits, underscoring date-specific application United India Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Alavi - 1998 Supreme(Ker) 160. Yet, core principles like 'pay and recovery' persist unless expressly overridden.
Some argue deletions imply changed liabilities, but courts clarify: amendments are prospective, preserving existing frameworks. Amendments generally do not have retrospective effect unless expressly provided NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS P. CHANDRAN - 2016 Supreme(Ker) 504. Authoritative rulings dismiss such contentions.
Limitations include timelines (e.g., 6 months for Section 166) and no recourse if Section 164 compensation accepted.
In summary, 'pay and recovery' should not be disallowed for accidents post-2019 amendments; it remains valid. Key rulings ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd vs Arti Devi - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2741Branch Manager, M/s. SBI General Insurance Company Limited vs Muthulakshmi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 18069 confirm insurers' ongoing duty to pay claimants first and recover from owners.
Takeaways:- Principle survives proviso omission.- Focus on victim relief aligns with amendments.- Prospective effects preserve status quo.
Disclaimer: This is general information based on reviewed judgments and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case, as outcomes may vary by facts and jurisdiction.
#PayAndRecovery #MVAct2019 #InsuranceClaims
The core issue involved is the applicability and retrospective operation of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, which came into force on 01.04.2022. The accident in question occurred on 16.6.2021. ... Upon perusal of the revision petition, it appears that the accident occurred on 16.6.2021, at a time when the amendment to Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act had not yet come into effect. The said amendment was incorporated only on 01.04.2022. ... It is a we....
Thus, the contention was that the appellant would not be liable to pay any further than what it was obliged to pay under the Act prior to coming of the amendment on 22nd May, 2018. 8. ... It was submitted that as the accident had occurred on 11th December, 2004, the benefit of such amendment could not be granted to the respondent. In support of this contention, learned counsel referred to and relied upon various decisions of this Court in Padma Srini....
and the said proviso was deleted by Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 2019 with effect from 01.04.2022 and hence, in the absence of enabling provision, the Tribunals are not entitled to order pay and recovery. ... The said finding was opposed on the ground that accident had occurred subsequent to coming into force of Amending Act-2019 and deletion of proviso in Section 150 (4) has not been considered by the Tribunal. ... , the Motor Accident Claims Tribu....
) Bill, 2019. ... Time period of not more than 30 days’ to be granted by Claims Tribunal to claimant to respond to offer made by insurance company. 14. ... Leave granted. 2. ... Vivek Gupta, learned counsel for the parties have expressed concern regarding delay in disposal of the claims cases in trial court or at appellate stage. Emphasis has been made to the ‘Objects and Reasons’ of Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 2019 (for short “M.V. ... Amendment A....
applying the principle “pay and recovery”. ... Golangi Bhoopathi and others in C.M.A.No.970 of 2004, dt17.04.2014, accepted the principle of “pay and recovery” in the case of gratuitous passengers also. ... Suresh K.K. and another, has applied the principle of “pay and recovery” since the driver has violated the policy terms by allowing the gratuitous passenger to travel in the auto. ... The appellant-insurance company though has taken a plea that accident was not #HL....
. - The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, West Sikkim, at Gyalshing (for short, "Learned Claims Tribunal"), settled three issues for determination in MACT Case No.06 of 2019 (Smt. Aita Maya Gurung and Others vs. ... It was further observed that the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, came into force with effect from 9/8/2019, vide which sub-sec. (3) was inserted in Sec. 166 of the M. V. ... The amendment was inserted by an Act 32 of 2019, Sec. 53(iii) [w.e.f. 1/9/#HL....
Mr Nandwani, Advocate appearing for the Insurance Company, contends that the accident occurred post 1st April 2022, when Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 came into force and original Section 149(4), which provides for ‘pay and recover’ directions, has now been consciously omitted ... It is contended that the MACT Court has granted recovery rights to recover compensation from respondent nos. 1 and 2, jointly and severally. 7. ... post amendment by Section 150(4) of....
It is not disputed that the case was posted on the next day of filing of the amendment application. ... The hearing to be granted should be a fair hearing. ... It can be seen that I.A No.982 of 1994 was dismissed as not pressed and the present I.A No.1917 of 1994 was filed for amendment of the written statement. ... of the said amount from the person liable to pay. ... The hearing to be granted should be a fair hearing.
The learned Tribunal did not apply the principle of ‘pay and recovery’. ... It ought to have applied the principle of ‘Pay and Recovery’ to the case on hand. ... The claimants filed the appeal challenging the said finding of the learned Tribunal on the ground that in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh case, the Tribunal ought to have applied ‘pay and recovery principle’ instead of complete exoneration of the respondent No.2/Insurance .......
It is not disputed that the case was posted on the next day of filing of the amendment application. ... It can be seen that I.A No.982 of 1994 was dismissed as not pressed and the present I.A No.1917 of 1994 was filed for amendment of the written statement. ... of the said amount from the person liable to pay. ... The hearing to be granted should be a fair hearing. When a reasonable opportunity to file objection is not granted or a reasonable opportu....
In the light of the above findings, we hold that the claimants in all these appeals are not entitled to get the benefit of Amendment Act 30 of 1995, since accidents occurred prior to 15.9.1995."
(Unfortunately, in the quantum fixed for different levels of loss of annual earnings, there are clear arithmetical errors in multiplication. Amendment is prospective and applied to cases of accidents which have occurred after 14.11.1994. The amendment by Act 54 of 1994 to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, contains a multiplier Table in the Second Schedule. In our view, the arithmetical mistakes in the Table can be corrected by the courts/Tribunals for if there is an obvious arithmetical mistake in the Table appended to a statute, the courts can correct the same.
The amendment by Act 54 of 1994 to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, contains a multiplier table in the Second Schedule. The amendment is prospective and applies to cases of accidents which have occurred after 14.11.1994. In our view, the arithmetical mistakes in the table can be corrected by the Courts/Tribunals for if there is an obvious arithmetical mistake in the table appended to a statute, the Courts can correct the same. (Unfortunately, in the quantum fixed for different levels of loss of annual earnings, there are clear arithmetical errors in multiplication.
In that case, it was specifically held that cases where accident took place prior to the amendment, but decided subsequent to the amendment, such cases would not attract the enhanced rate introduced by the amendment. In the present case, on the date of death i.e. 11.07.99, Section 4 of the Act and Explanation II thereto reads as under- Valsalka K. and another, reported in (1999) 8 SCC 254.
In the light of the above findings, we hold that the claimants in all these appeals are not entitled to get the benefit of Amendment Act 30 of 1995, since accidents occurred prior to 15.9.1995.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
