M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE vs R.SHANMUGAKANI

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On: 23.09.2026 Pronounced On:02.11.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN
CMA(MD)No.1267 of 2017
CNR:{HCMD011010122017}
AND
CMA(MD).No.1266 of 2017, CMA(MD)No.1268 of 2017
C.M.A.(MD).No.1267 of 2017
M/s. United India InsuranceCo.Ltd.,
146,Kumar Complex, Thiruchengode(post)
Melum Taluk,
Namakkal District.
..Appellants(s)
Vs
1. R.Shanmugamani
Minor 1st respondent is declared as major and
guardianship of his father namely
S.T.Ramamoorthy is discharged vide court
order dated 18.08.2026 made in
CMP(MD).No.2456/2018 in
CMA(MD).No.1267/2017
2. R.Rameswaran
3. R.Thangavelu
4. M/s. New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
Divisional Office,
Erode District.
..Respondent(s)
CMA.(MD).No. 1266 of 2017
{HCMD011010112017}
M/s. United India InsuranceCo.Ltd.,
146,Kumar Complex,
Thiruchengode(post) & Taluk,
Namakkal District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:17:56 pm )

..Appellants (s)
Vs
1. Karthick
Minor 1st respondent is declared as major and
guardianship of his father namely
S.T.Ramamoorthy is discharged vide court
order dated 18.08.2026 made in
CMP(MD).No. 2455/2018 in
CMA(MD).No.1266/2017
2. R.Rameswaran
3. R.Thangavelu
4. M/s. New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
Divisional Office,
Erode District.
..Respondent(s)
CMA.(MD).No. 1268 of 2017
M/s. United India InsuranceCo.Ltd.,
146,Kumar Complex,
Thiruchengode(post)
Melum Taluk,
Namakkal District.
..Petitioner (s)
Vs
1. K.Parthiban
st
Minor 1 respondent is declared as major and
guardianship of his father namely S.T.
Karuppaiah is discharged vide court order
dated 18.08.2026 made in CMP(MD).No.
2457/2018 in CMA(MD).No.1268/2017
2. Mr.R.Rameswaran
3. Mr.R.Thangavelu
4. M/s. New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
Divisional Office,
Erode District.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer in C.M.A.(MD).No.1266 of 2017 : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been
filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, against the judgment and decree dated
09.01.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.149 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Sub Court) Kulithalai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:17:56 pm )

Prayer in C.M.A.(MD).No.1267 of 2017 : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been
filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, against the judgment and decree dated
09.01.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.150 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Sub Court) Kulithalai.
Prayer in C.M.A.(MD).No.1268 of 2017 : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been
filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, against the judgment and decree dated
09.01.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.151 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Sub Court) Kulithalai.
For Appellant:
Mr. B.Rajesh Saravanan
in all cases
For Respondent:
Mr.J.S.Murali for R4
in all cases
COMMON JUDGMENT
The second respondent United India Insurance Company in
M.C.O.P.Nos.149, 150 and 151 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-Subordinate Judge, Kulithalai have filed these present Civil
Miscellaneous Appeals, namely C.M.A.(MD).Nos.1266, 1267 and 1268 of 2017,
challenging the common award dated 09.01.2012 passed in the said claim petitions.
Since the issue involved in all the appeals is identical, they are disposed of by this
common judgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:17:56 pm )

2. Facts of case:
2.1.The minor claimants in all the three claim petitions pleaded that, on
31.01.2007 at about 04.00 pm., they were travelling in the lorry bearing Registration
No.TN-04-Y-2282 belonged to the second respondent herein which was insured with
the appellant-Insurance Company. The said lorry was proceeding from
Balasamudram towards Srinivasanallur. It is alleged that the driver of the said lorry
drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and, in the course of the journey,
dashed against the oncoming lorry bearing Registration No.TAS-7045. In the said
accident, all the three minor claimants sustained injuries and, therefore, filed separate
claim petitions claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by them.
2.2.The appellant-Insurance Company filed its counter disputing its
liability to pay compensation. According to the Insurance Company, all the three
minor claimants had travelled as gratuitous passengers in the goods vehicle and,
therefore, there was a violation of the policy conditions. Hence, the Insurance
Company contended that it was not liable to indemnify the owner.
2.3.The insurer of the other vehicle bearing Registration No.TAS-7045 also
contested the claim petitions. It was contended that the accident had occurred solely
due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing Registration
No.TN-04-Y-2282, in which the claimants were travelling, and that the driver of the
vehicle insured with the said respondent was not responsible for the accident. The
said respondent also disputed the quantum of compensation claimed by the injured
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:17:56 pm )

claimants.
2.4.During the course of trial, (i) on the side of the claimants P.Ws.1 to 3
were examined and Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. On the side of the respondents,
R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.R1 and R3 were marked in M.C.O.P.No.149 of
2008. (ii) On the side of the claimants, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.P1 to
Ex.P10 were marked. On the side of the respondents R.W.1 to R.W.3 were examined
and Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 were marked in M.C.O.P.No.150 of 2008. (iii) On the side of the
claimants, P.W.1 to P.w.3 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P.13 were marked. On the
side of the respondents R.W.1 to R.W.3 were examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 were
marked in M.C.O.P.No.151 of 2008.
3. Findings of the Tribunal:
3.1.Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal
found that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-04-Y-2282, which was insured with
the appellant-Insurance Company. The Tribunal further found that the claimants had
travelled in the goods vehicle as gratuitous passengers and that there was a violation
of the policy conditions. Nevertheless, the Tribunal directed the appellant-Insurance
Company to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants in the first instance and
thereafter recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The award passed by the
Tribunal is as follows:
3.1.1. M.C.O.P.No.149 of 2008
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:17:56 pm )

Sl.N
Heads Amount in Rs.
o
1 For future medical expenses 30,000/-
2 For Medical Expenses 6,620/-
3 Transportation and Extra Nourishment 3,000/-
4 Pain and sufferings and discomfort 15,000/-
Total 54,620/-
3.1.2.M.C.O.P.No.150 of 2008
Sl.N
Heads Amount in Rs.
o
1 For Medical Expenses 8,872/-
3 Transportation and Extra Nourishment 3,000/-
4 Pain and sufferings and discomfort 10,000/-
Total 21,872/-
3.1.3. M.C.O.P.No.151 of 2008
Sl.N
Heads Amount in Rs.
o
1 20% Permanent Disability 40,000/-
2 Medical Expenses 54,190/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:17:56 pm )

3 Transportation and extra nourishment 20,000/-
4 Pain and sufferings and for discomfort 20,000/-
Total 1,34,190/-
3.2.Aggrieved by the said direction, the Insurance Company has preferred
the present appeals.
4. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/
United India Insurance company:
4.1.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company
would submit that, once the Tribunal had categorically found that the claimants were
gratuitous passengers travelling in a goods vehicle, the Insurance Company could not
have been directed to satisfy the award. According to the learned counsel, the finding
regarding violation of the policy conditions necessarily disentitled the claimants from
seeking indemnification from the Insurance Company. Reliance was placed upon the
judgment cited on behalf of the appellant. The learned counsel therefore sought
interference with the direction for pay and recovery.
5. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the fourth
respondent/New India Assurance Company:
th
5.1.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 4 respondent would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:17:56 pm )

submit that the Tribunal had rightly directed the United India Insurance Company to
pay the compensation amount in the first instance and thereafter recover the same
from the owner of the offending vehicle. It is submitted that the issue is no longer res
integra and has already been considered by this Court in C.M.A.(MD).No.771 of
2023. It is further submitted that the said decision has taken note of the subsequent
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2026 1 TN MAC 680 (SC) and
has affirmed the principle of pay and recovery. Hence, according to the learned
counsel, no interference is warranted.
6.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials
available on record.
7.The following point arises for consideration:
7.1.Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the appellant-Insurance
Company to pay the compensation to the injured claimants in the first instance and
thereafter recover the same from the owner, despite recording a finding that the
claimants had travelled as gratuitous passengers in the goods vehicle?
8.Discussion and findings:
8.1.The Tribunal has recorded a specific finding that the claimants travelled
in the goods vehicle as gratuitous passengers and that there was a violation of the
policy conditions. The appellant-Insurance Company does not dispute the said
finding. The limited question, therefore, is whether, the Tribunal was justified in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:17:56 pm )

issuing a direction for pay and recovery, even after observation that the claimants
travelled as gratuitous passengers.
8.2.A similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in C.M.A.
(MD).No.771 of 2023. In the said case, this Court has elaborately considered the
principles governing the direction for pay and recovery, after taking note of the
subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2026 1 TN MAC 680
(SC) . The relevant discussion contained in paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2 of the said
judgment is extracted below:
“8.1. This issue was authoritatively considered by the
Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, (2003) 2 SCC 223, wherein it
was held that an insurer is not statutorily liable to indemnify the
owner in respect of gratuitous passengers travelling in a goods
vehicle. The said principle was reaffirmed in National Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, (2004) 2 SCC 1. However, the law did not
remain the same thereafter. The subsequent decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court have repeatedly invoked the doctrine of
"pay and recover" in appropriate cases, notwithstanding the
absence of statutory liability, with a view to protecting the interests
of innocent third-party victims. The principle has been applied in
several decisions, including National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran
Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297; Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 656; Shamanna v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
(2018) 9 SCC 650; and other subsequent judgments. The learned
counsel for the appellant, however, relied heavily upon Baljit Kaur
case and submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in
invoking the doctrine of "pay and recover", the same cannot be
accepted.
8.2. This Court finds considerable force in the
submissions advanced on behalf of the claimants that in view of the
latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:17:56 pm )

Kaminiben and Others -vs- Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., and Ors
reported in 2026 (1) TN MAC 680 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has once again considered the correctness of applying the
doctrine of "pay and recover" in such cases by framing the specific
question whether the High Court was justified in reversing the
finding of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which had directed the
insurance company to pay the amount of compensation to the
claimants and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the
vehicle and has affirmed the exercise of such power by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunals and set aside the judgment of the High
Court after elaborate discussion and following the decision of the
“Saju P.Paul” and “Manuara Khatun” and distinguishing the
“Amudhavalli” case. Further the reference was disposed of by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court with observation to consider the cases on
case to case basis. When the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated
the applicability of the “pay and recover” doctrine in the case of
Kaminiben and Others -vs- Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., and Ors
reported in 2026 (1) TN MAC 680 (SC), this Court, being bound
under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, has no jurisdiction
to take a contrary view by placing reliance exclusively upon Baljit
Kaur, ignoring the subsequent law holding the field. Judicial
discipline demands that this Court has to follow the law as
explained in the later binding precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court on the basis of binding nature of article 141 of Constitution
of India, which says that the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court to be binding on all Courts. Consequently, the direction
issued by the learned Tribunal directing the insurer to satisfy the
award in the first instance and thereafter recover the amount from
the owner of the offending vehicle is fully in accordance with the
settled legal position and calls for no interference. Accordingly,
the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company is rejected.
8.3.The principle laid down in the said decision squarely applies to the
facts of the present case. The mere fact that the Tribunal has recorded a finding
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:17:56 pm )

regarding violation of the policy conditions does not, in the facts of the present case,
warrant interference against the direction requiring the Insurance Company to satisfy
the award in the first instance and thereafter recover the amount from the owner of
the offending vehicle.
8.4.In view of the above legal position and following the decision of this
Court in C.M.A.(MD).No.771 of 2023, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the
direction issued by the Tribunal for pay and recovery.
8.5.The appellant-Insurance Company has not challenged the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no necessity to examine
the quantum of compensation in these appeals.
8.6.Accordingly, the direction of the Tribunal for pay and recovery is
hereby confirmed. The appellant-Insurance Company shall satisfy the respective
awards passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.149, 150 and 151 of 2008 and shall thereafter be
entitled to recover the amounts so paid from the owner of the vehicle, in accordance
with law.
9. Result:
9.1.In the result, C.M.A.(MD).Nos.1266, 1267 and 1268 of 2017 are
dismissed .
9.2.The common award dated 09.01.2012 passed in M.C.O.P. Nos.149, 150
and 151 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:17:56 pm )

Court, Kulithalai are hereby confirmed including the direction for pay and recovery.
9.3.The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the respective
award amounts, together with accrued interest, within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after adjusting the amount, if any,
already deposited.
9.4.On such deposit, the respective claimants are entitled to withdraw the
award amounts in accordance with law and the procedure prescribed by the Tribunal.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
02-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
sbn
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Subordinate Court, Kulithalai,
Karur District.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:17:56 pm )

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN.,J.
sbn
CMA(MD) No.1267 of 2017, CMA(MD) No.1266 of 2017 and
CMA(MD) No.1268 of 2017
02-11-2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:17:56 pm )