High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

Full and Final Settlement from Claimant’s Own Insurer Extinguishes Right to Further Compensation” – Karnataka High Court Upholds Tribunal’s Dismissal of Additional Claim

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Karnataka today upheld the Tribunal’s decision that once a claimant has received full and final compensation from their own insurer, they are precluded from seeking further compensation from another party’s insurer in cases of vehicle damage due to negligent driving.

Legal Context:

The legal question centered around the claimant’s right to seek additional compensation despite having received a complete settlement from their own insurer, as stipulated under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This case primarily involves the interplay between insurance settlement and the right to further compensation.

Facts and Issues:

The case arose from an incident on May 12, 2009, when a vehicle driven negligently by another party collided with the claimant’s car, leading to severe damage. The claimant, Sri. Kumarvel Janakiram, received a settlement of Rs. 95,259 from his insurer, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company, but pursued additional compensation of Rs. 1,41,516 from the insurer of the vehicle that allegedly caused the accident.

Settlement Finality: The Court confirmed that the settlement received by the claimant from his own insurer was both full and final, covering the total damages incurred. This was clearly established during cross-examination where the claimant confirmed receiving this amount in full satisfaction of his claim.

Rejection of Duplication in Compensation: The Court highlighted that once full compensation has been received from one source, any claim against another party’s insurer for the same damage is effectively negated. This aligns with prior judgments, including the notable Harkhu Bai’s case, reinforcing the principle of preventing unjust enrichment.

Contention of Tortious Liability: Despite arguments presented by the claimant’s counsel regarding the tortious liability of the offending vehicle’s insurer, the court found no merit in this claim given the full settlement already made by the claimant’s own insurer.

Decision: The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the claimant had already received adequate compensation from his insurer, nullifying any further claims against other parties involved.

Date of decision : April 22, 2024

Sri. Kumarvel Janakiram VS Premchandra M R

Similar News