Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"28. We may, therefore, classify subrogation under three broad categories: 
             (i)          subrogation                by         equitable
             assignment;
(ii) subrogation by contract; and
(iii) subrogation-cum-assignment.

28.1 In the first category, the subrogation is not evidenced by any document, but is based on the insurance policy and the receipt issued by the assured acknowledging the full settlement of the claim relating to the loss. Where the insurer has reimbursed the entire loss incurred by the assured, it can sue in the name of the assured for the amount paid by it to the assured. But where the insurer has reimbursed only a part of the loss, in settling the insurance claim, the insurer has to wait for the assured to sue and recover compensation from NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1615/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2023 undefined the wrongdoer; and when the assured recovers compensation, the assured is entitled to first appropriate the same towards the balance of his loss (which was not received from the insurer) so that he gets full reimbursement of his loss and the cost, if any, incurred by him for such recovery. The insurer will be entitled only to whatever balance remaining, for reimbursement of what it paid to the assured.

5.1 Further was noted in paragraph no.16 as under:

"16. The equitable assignment of the rights and remedies of the assured in favour of the insurer, implied in a contract of indemnity, known as `subrogation', is based on two basic principles of equity :
(a) No tort-feasor should escape liability for his wrong;
(b) No unjust enrichment for the injured, by recovery of compensation for the same loss, from more than one source.

5.2 Thus, it was noted that the doctrine of subrogation is based on principle of equity and there cannot be any unjust enrichment for the recovery of the compensation for the same loss from more than one source. The Apex Court, thus, observed that the subrogation may be classified under three sub-categories being (i) subrogation by equitable assignment (ii) subrogation by contract, and (iii) subrogation-cum-assignment. 5.3 The principle of subrogation is on the basis of equity that no tortfeasor should escape from liability for his wrong and at the same time there could be no unjust enrichment for the injured for recovery of the compensation for the same loss from more than one source. In the case of Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1615/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2023 undefined Shashi Sharma and Ors., reported in (2016) 9 SCC 627, it was held that the general principals under common law for estimating damages cannot be applicable for determination of compensation under Motor Vehicles Act; 'Pecuniary advantage' from whatever source must correlate to injury or death arising out of motor vehicle accident. The principles expounded in Mrs. Hellen C. Rebello case (supra) is that the application of general principles under the common law to estimate damages cannot be invoked for computing compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act. The two cardinal principles run through the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the matter of determination of compensation; firstly the measure of compensation must be just and adequate, and secondly no double benefit should be passed on to the claimants in matter of award of compensation. It was held that word "just" means fair, adequate and reasonable. The Latin NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1615/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2023 undefined word "justus" connoting right and fair, correlate with the expression "just" to denote that the amount must be equitable, fair, reasonable and not arbitrary. The compensation, as has been held in the judgment of Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shashi Sharma and Ors. (supra), is not intended to be bonanza, largesse or source of profit.

8.1 The insurer, if settles the claim of the assured for the entire loss, then equitable right of subrogation arises and in such case of subrogation by equitable assignment, the insurer would be allowed to stand in the shoes of the assured and can enforce the right of the assured against wrongdoer. Such subrogation is based on the Insurance Policy and the receipt issued by the assured acknowledging the full settlement of the claim relating to the loss. Subrogation does not terminate the right of the assured to sue the wrongdoer, nor that puts an end to recover the damages for the loss. Under the principle of subrogation, insurer would be entitled to receive the amount paid to the assured, and when insurer pays the entire loss to the assured, then the insurer can sue in the name of assured for the NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1615/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2023 undefined amount paid to the assured.