Injured Motor Accident Claimant And Insurer Settle Appeal For Rs 60 Lakh; Orissa HC Orders Payment Within Eight Weeks

In brief

The question

Whether the appeal could be disposed of on the parties’ agreed compromise of ₹60,00,000.

The court held

The Court disposed of the appeal on compromise and directed the insurer to pay the claimant ₹60,00,000 within eight weeks; if it failed to do so, the insurer could be proceeded against through the Court’s process.

It also directed

The statutory deposit and accrued interest were to be refunded after proof that the compensation had been deposited before the Tribunal.

The insurer’s communication was made part of the judgment.

01Facts

The insurer appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Tribunal’s award of ₹59,64,312, with interest and default interest, to the injured claimant.

pp. 1–2

During the appeal, the insurer and claimant agreed to settle the claim for a consolidated sum of ₹60,00,000.

pp. 2–4

The insurer produced a company communication authorising the compromise, and the claimant accepted the settlement through a memo filed by counsel.

pp. 2–4

Notice to Respondent 2 was dispensed with in view of the compromise.

p. 2

02Issues

i.Whether the appeal could be disposed of on the parties’ agreed compromise of ₹60,00,000.

pp. 2–4

ii.Whether the insurer should be directed to pay the compromise amount within a specified period, with directions concerning the statutory deposit.

p. 4

03Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for an appeal against an award of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

p. 1

The Court also took guidance from Taslim Parvin & Another v. (Smt.) Usha Devi & Another, 2018(2) TAC 22 (SC), in considering the parties’ settlement.

p. 3

The judgment does not set out a broader legal test from that precedent; it records that the compromise was accepted as an appropriate basis for disposing of this appeal.

pp. 3–4

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173

04Reasoning

The insurer’s authorised communication confirmed its agreement to pay ₹60,00,000, and the claimant did not dispute the settlement and formally accepted it through counsel.

pp. 2–4

Having considered the communication and other materials on record, and taking guidance from Taslim Parvin, the Court concluded that settling the claim for the agreed amount would best serve the interests of justice.

pp. 3–4