State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Marriage Cannot Be Perpetuated on Paper When Cohabitation Has Ceased for Decades: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Grant Divorce Despite Wife’s Opposition Ownership of Trucks Does Not Mean Windfall Compensation: Supreme Court Slashes Inflated Motor Accident Award in Absence of Documentary Proof Concealment of Mortgage Is Fraud, Not a Technical Omission: Supreme Court Restores Refund Decree, Slams High Court’s Remand State Reorganization Does Not Automatically Convert Cooperative Societies into Multi-State Entities: Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Interpretation of Section 103 Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication

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

Latest Legal News