Tribunals must specifically adjudicate license and permit validity to determine "pay and recover" liability.

The legal heirs of the deceased, Lochan Ravidas, filed a claim for compensation following a motor vehicle accident on July 6, 2014, involving an autorickshaw (Registration No. JH-10AJ-9908)

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in its judgment dated July 26, 2018, awarded compensation to the claimants.

The Appellant (Insurance Company) challenged this award, asserting that the Tribunal failed to substantively address issues regarding whether the driver possessed a valid driving license and whether the vehicle had a valid permit at the time of the accident

While the appeal was pending, the compensation amount was deposited with the Tribunal pursuant to a court order dated August 3, 2021

The Appellant sought a "pay and recover" order against the owner of the vehicle (Respondent No. 7) based on a fundamental breach of policy terms.

1. Whether the driver of the offending autorickshaw possessed a valid and effective driving license and whether the vehicle had a valid permit at the time of the accident.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s failure to provide a reasoned discussion on the framed issues regarding policy breaches warrants a remand for a "pay and recover" determination.

The court emphasized that while Tribunals should avoid a "hyper-technical approach" and act as parens patriae in motor accident claim cases to ensure social justice

this does not exempt them from the statutory duty to adjudicate specific issues of fact and law raised by the parties

The court applied the principle of "pay and recover," which allows an insurer to be held liable to third-party claimants initially, with the right to recover the disbursed amount from the vehicle owner if a fundamental breach of the insurance policy (such as lack of a valid license or permit) is established

The High Court observed that the Tribunal had specifically framed Issue Nos. 4 and 5 regarding the validity of the driving license and the vehicle permit

upon reviewing paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment, the Court found that the Tribunal offered no meaningful discussion or evidence-based findings on these issues, instead dismissing the concerns by labeling them "technical"

The Court held that a lack of "hyper-technicality" cannot serve as an excuse for failing to address the core components of the dispute

To balance the interests of the parties, the Court protected the claimants by directing the immediate release of the deposited compensation [para. 5], while acknowledging that the dispute between the insurer and the owner regarding the policy breach remained unresolved.

Consequently, the Court determined that a limited remand was necessary to allow both parties to lead evidence specifically on the validity of the license and permit

It dismissed the appeal against the original claimants, ordering the Tribunal and the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to ensure the compensation is transferred directly to the claimants' bank accounts

Regarding the dispute between the insurer and the owner, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision strictly on Issue Nos. 4 and 5

The Tribunal is directed to determine if a fundamental breach of policy occurred and, if so, pass a "pay and recover" order against the 7th respondent

The statutory amount deposited by the appellant in the High Court was ordered to be refunded