Order of "Pay and Recover" inapplicable to claimants seeking compensation for negligence of their own father.

The appellants (children of the deceased) filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation for the death of their mother, Smt. Manjula, in a road accident on 28.09.2019

The deceased was a pillion rider on a motorcycle ridden by Respondent No. 1 (her husband and the father of the appellants). The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of Respondent No. 1

The Tribunal awarded Rs. 25,56,120/- but held only Respondent No. 1 liable, exonerating the insurer because Respondent No. 1 did not possess a valid driving license at the time of the accident

The appellants challenged the exoneration of the insurer, seeking a "pay and recover" order

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in exonerating the insurance company from liability and refusing to apply the principle of "pay and recover" despite the absence of a driving license.

The Court applied the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, specifically Section 3 read with Section 181 regarding the necessity of a valid driving license

It further examined the doctrine of "Pay and Recover," a judicial principle typically applied in cases involving third-party risks where there is a breach of policy conditions (such as lack of a license), requiring the insurer to pay the claimant first and subsequently recover the amount from the owner

The Court observed that while the charge sheet confirmed Respondent No. 1 lacked a valid driving license, the peculiar familial relationship between the parties precluded the application of the "pay and recover" doctrine

The Court reasoned that the principle of "pay and recover" is generally reserved for protecting "third parties." In this instance, the negligent rider/owner (Respondent No. 1) is the father of the claimants

The Court found that since the claimants are the legal heirs of the owner himself and are seeking compensation for an accident caused by their own father's negligence, the liability remains personal to the owner

The Tribunal’s decision to exonerate the insurer was upheld because the breach of policy (lack of license) was absolute and the equities did not favor directing an insurer to pay children for the tortious act of their father when the contract of insurance was breached

The Court held that the "pay and recover" order cannot be applied in this specific context where the claimants are the children of the tortfeasor-owner

Consequently, the claimants must recover the awarded compensation of Rs. 25,56,120/- solely from Respondent No. 1 (their father)