High Court Kerala High Court

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs V.A.Augustine on 18 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs V.A.Augustine on 18 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MFA.No. 642 of 2002(C)


1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. V.A.AUGUSTINE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. K.J.CHACKO, S/O.JOSEPH,

3. JOSEPH,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :18/06/2008

 O R D E R
                       M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
               = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                    M.F.A.NO. 642 OF 2002
               = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
           Dated this the 18th day of June, 2008.

                        J U D G M E N T

This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala in OP(MV)1287/95. It relates

to the damages sustained by the vehicle in a road accident.

The Tribunal after elaborately considering the materials

available awarded a compensation of Rs.33,333/- as damages

with 9% interest. The point that arises for determination is

whether a tortfeasor is liable to get the benefit out of the

compensation paid under a comprehensive policy to the owner

of the vehicle concerned. The Delhi High Court has taken a

view that in such cases a tortfeasor shall not be a beneficiary

and therefore that it is liable to pay the entire amount. The

matter has been considered by this Court in the decision

reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohan (2008

(2) KLT 683). The learned judge of this Court held that

insured is entitled to maintain an action against the tortfeasor

MFA 642 of 2002
-2-

even if he has received compensation from his insurer. But he

cannot appropriate that amount he had received from the

Company and he will hold that amount as trustee of insurer.

The Court held that,

“The insured is entitled to maintain an action

against the tortfeasor even if he had received

compensation from his insurer. But he cannot

appropriate that amount which he had received

from the company and he will hold that amount as

trustee of the insurer and he is answerable and

accountable to the insurance company to that extent.

If the insurer after obtaining a letter of subrogation

from the first respondent had filed an Original

Petition or it had also joined in filing the original

petition it would have been entitled to that amount.

Even assuming that first respondent is entitled to

receive the amount he can only receive the same in

trust. But the insurer has not made any claim over

the amount though it is made a party to this

proceedings. So the first respondent cannot be

allowed to make any double benefit. So he is not

entitled to get any compensation in this

proceedings.”

MFA 642 of 2002
-3-

2. So the dictum laid down very clearly indicates that

at the most one may be entitled to get the difference of the

actual damages that is sustained but one will not be entitled to

that amount also which had been paid by the insurer of one’s

own vehicle. It is on the salutary principle that for the same

act one cannot get compensation twice.

3. So far as this case is concerned there is one

difference to the effect that what is now claimed is only the

balance amount other than what is paid by the other insurance

company. The Tribunal has fixed the total compensation

amount at Rs.33,333/- and it is submitted that the owner of

the vehicle had received Rs.20,803/- from the insurer of his

vehicle. When it is so the compensation which the owner is

entitled to from the tortfeasor has to be limited to Rs.12,530

for the reason that the other insurance company has not made

any claim applying the principles of subrogation. Therefore

recording the factum of payment of Rs.20,803/- only the

balance amount of Rs.12,530/- is liable to be paid by the

insurance company of the tortfeasor. To this extent the award

requires modification.

MFA 642 of 2002
-4-

4. Therefore the MACA is partly allowed and the

claimant is awarded a compensation of Rs.12,530/- with 9%

interest on the said sum from the date of petition till

realisation with the costs ordered by the Tribunal. In the

appeal parties are directed to bear their respective costs.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

ul/-

MFA 642 of 2002
-5-

M.N. KRISHNAN, J.

= = = = = = = = = =
M.F.A. No. 642 OF 2002
= = = = = = = = = = =

J U D G M E N T

18th June, 2008.