Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Insurer Entitled to Recover Compensation from Owner When Driver Has No Licence or Fake Licence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Applies ‘Pay and Recover’ Doctrine

11 December 2025 7:46 PM

By: Admin


“Once it is proved that the driver was not holding a valid licence, the Insurance Company must first pay the claimants, but has a legal right to recover the amount from the owner” – In a notable reaffirmation of the well-settled ‘pay and recover’ principle in motor accident compensation cases, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that when the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, the Insurance Company must first compensate the victims, but shall be entitled to recover the amount from the vehicle owner and driver.

The ruling came in FAO wherein the Insurance Company challenged the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur, which imposed liability without granting any recovery rights, even though the Tribunal had itself found that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence.

“Tribunal’s Refusal to Grant Recovery Rights Is an Error Apparent on the Face of Record”

Justice Virinder Aggarwal, presiding over the appeal, noted that while the MACT had rightly found the driver guilty of negligent driving and lacking a valid licence, it wrongly fastened absolute liability on the insurer without reserving its recovery rights.

“The omission of the learned Tribunal to grant such rights, despite recording a clear finding on absence of licence, amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record.”

The Court clarified that such an approach contravenes the settled position of law, as laid down by the Supreme Court.

“Victims Must Be Paid, But Insurer Has Right to Recover From Owner When Policy Conditions Are Breached”

The Court invoked the settled position of law in cases such as:

  • New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla Devi SC

  • National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh SC

  • Shamanna v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. SC

These precedents mandate that:

“Where the insurer establishes a fundamental breach of policy conditions, especially relating to absence of a valid and effective driving licence, it cannot be asked to shoulder permanent liability but must be allowed to recover the amount after satisfying the award.”

In this case, the driver Jasbir Singh’s licence was found to be fake, and evidence from the Licensing Authority, Jhansi, confirmed that the licence was not issued by them.

“Protecting Victims While Ensuring Accountability of Vehicle Owners”

The Court upheld the compensation awarded to the claimants – Rs. 2,88,000 with 9% interest – for the death of Gurwinder Singh, a 21-year-old, who had died on the spot in a collision between a scooter and a rashly driven Tata 407 truck.

However, the Court clarified that the Insurance Company cannot be held absolutely liable in cases of established violation of policy terms:

“The principle of ‘pay and recover’ balances the rights of third-party victims and the obligations of insured vehicle owners. Innocent victims cannot be left remediless due to inter se breaches between the insurer and the insured.”

Insurer’s Right to Recover Recognized, Appeal Allowed in Part

Allowing the appeal partially, the Court passed the following operative order:

“The award of the learned Tribunal dated 19.07.2001 is upheld insofar as it relates to the entitlement of the claimants to compensation. However, it is directed that the appellant-Insurance Company, after satisfying the award amount in favour of the claimants, shall be entitled to recover the same from respondent no.5 and 6, i.e., the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, in accordance with law.”

Tribunal Must Balance Victims’ Rights and Policy Defences

This judgment reinforces a fundamental tenet of Indian motor accident law: compensation to victims takes priority, but insurance companies are not helpless when vehicle owners commit policy breaches. The “pay and recover” doctrine ensures that justice is delivered both to the victims and the insurer, who retains the right to recover the amount from those who violated the terms of insurance.

Date of Decision : 23 September 2025

Latest Legal News