Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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