Madhya Pradesh High Court

Insurance Company Liable to Pay and Recover Compensation Despite Breach of Policy Condition for Lack of Driving License

Prashant Vishwas vs Ramesh

Madhya Pradesh High CourtJUDGMENT: July 03, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The appellant sustained a shoulder fracture and other injuries in April 2012 when hit by a motorcycle driven negligently by respondent No. 2

Source reference: para. 03

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded ₹57,000 in compensation but exempted the respondent Insurance Company from liability, finding that the driver lacked a valid license, which constituted a breach of policy terms

Source reference: para. 04–05

The appellant approached the High Court seeking both an increase in the compensation amount and a reversal of the Insurance Company’s exoneration

Source reference: para. 06
02

Issues

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for pain, suffering, and medical amenities was adequate given the nature of the injuries

Source reference: para. 08–09

2. Whether the Insurance Company can be completely exonerated from paying a third party due to a breach of policy conditions regarding a driver's license

Source reference: para. 10
03

Law Applied

The court primarily applied Section 149 and Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding the liability of insurers toward third parties

Source reference: para. 02, 10

It relied on the "pay and recover" doctrine established by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, which mandates that an insurer must first satisfy an award for a third party even if policy conditions were breached, subsequently seeking reimbursement from the insured

Source reference: para. 10–11
04

Reasoning

The Court determined the original award was insufficient, noting that a fracture requiring surgery justified a higher payout for pain and suffering than the amount initially granted

Source reference: para. 09

Regarding liability, the Court reasoned that while a breach of policy (such as a lack of a driving license) is a valid defense for an insurer against the policyholder, it does not extinguish the insurer's primary obligation to a victim under the Act's beneficial provisions

Source reference: para. 10

The Court emphasized that forcing a victim to recover directly from a vehicle owner rather than an established insurer would be "offensive to the sense of justice"

Source reference: para. 11
05

Holding

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, enhancing the compensation by ₹25,000 for a total of ₹82,000 with 7% interest

The Court set aside the exoneration of the Insurance Company, holding it jointly and severally liable to pay the claimant first, with the right to recover the sum from the owner and driver thereafter

Source reference: para. 12
Madhya Pradesh High Court

Original Court PDF

Prashant VishwasvsRamesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · July 03, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment