An insurer cannot be compelled to pay compensation twice for the same death.

The deceased, P. Samykutty, aged approximately 77 years, was riding his moped on Palakkad Main Road, near K.G. Chavadi, Coimbatore, on 23 February 2013, when a lorry allegedly driven rashly and negligently by the first respondent collided with him. He sustained injuries and subsequently died.

His wife, Janaki, and sons, respondents 1 to 4, filed MCOP No.349 of 2015 claiming ₹4,60,000 as compensation, asserting that the deceased earned ₹7,000 per month as a security guard.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal accepted the evidence of the eyewitness and the FIR, held that the accident resulted from the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver, and awarded ₹2,80,000 with interest under various heads.

The Insurance Company contended that Subbulakshmi, arrayed as the seventh respondent, had already filed MCOP No.1290 of 2013 concerning the same accident and death. That claim had been settled before the Lok Adalat on 22 February 2014 for ₹2,15,000, and the amount had been deposited by the insurer.

1. Whether the Insurance Company could be directed to satisfy a second compensation award arising from the same accident and death after an earlier claim had been settled and satisfied before the Lok Adalat?

2. Whether the claimants had sufficiently established their status as the legal representatives of the deceased so as to maintain the subsequent claim petition?

3. Whether the Tribunal’s award of ₹2,80,000 in MCOP No.349 of 2015 was legally sustainable?

The Court applied the principle that compensation for one motor accident causing one death cannot be recovered through two independent awards against the insurer for the same cause of action.

Referring to Section 161(C) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as stated in the judgment, the Court recognised that persons who establish themselves as legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to claim compensation.

The Tribunal had calculated loss of dependency by applying the multiplier principles in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, but the appellate decision ultimately turned on the prior settlement and satisfaction of the earlier claim rather than on the quantum calculation.

The Court found that MCOP No.1290 of 2013 had already been settled before the Lok Adalat for ₹2,15,000 and that the insurer had satisfied the resulting award, as evidenced by the relevant records.

Since that proceeding related to the same accident and death of Samykutty, permitting MCOP No.349 of 2015 to result in another award would expose the insurer to double liability for a single cause of action.

The Court also noted that the present claimants had not produced the family ration card or death certificate, while the legal-heir certificate identified Subbulakshmi as the deceased’s wife and the family card recorded her husband’s name as Swamykutty.

Although the Tribunal had relied on service records and other documents to recognise the claimants as legal heirs, the High Court held that its direction for a further payment was unsustainable because the earlier claim had already been scrutinised, settled, and satisfied by the insurer.

The appeal was allowed; the Tribunal’s award dated 15 October 2019 in MCOP No.349 of 2015 was set aside, and the claim petition was dismissed.

No order as to costs was made, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.