Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

53(a). In the aforesaid case, the apex court has dealt with the principle of pay and recovery and summarized the law by relying upon Swaran Singh wherein the apex Court has considered as to whether the Supreme Court alone has got jurisdiction to order for pay and recover by exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India or whether the Tribunal and the High Courts have also got such power to order for pay and recovery. The apex court relying upon Swaran Singh's case and also Laxminarayan Dhut's case, as already referred to above by us in this judgment, has reiterated that the decision in Swaran Singh's case has no application to cases other than third party risks. But, in the case of third party risks, the insurer has to indemnify the amount and if so directed to recover the same from the insured. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also relied upon Premakumari's case and also distinguished Parvathneni's case (supra), in which, Supreme Court doubted the correctness of the decision to exercise jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, i.e. Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount even though the insurance company has no liability to pay, pointing out that Article 142 of the Constitution of India, does not cover such type of cases.

53(e). Subsequently, in various other decisions also the apex court has followed the same principle of Swaran Singh with some small modifications.

54. In AIR 2018 SC 592 between Pappu and Others and Vinod Kumar Lamba and another, the three Judges Bench of the Apex Court at paragraph No. 14, relying upon Swaran Singh's case has observed that, even if the insurer succeeds in establishing its defence under Section 149(2), the Tribunal or the Court can direct the insurance company to pay the award amount to the claimant(s) and, in turn, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The three-Judges Bench, after analyzing the earlier decisions on the point, held that there was no reason to deviate from the said well settled principle, laid down in Swaran Singh's case.

59. On a careful perusal and meaningful understanding of all the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that, in various decisions prior to Swaran Singh, the apex Court had divergent opinions with regard to pay and recovery concept. However, prior to and even after Swaran Singh's case, the apex Court in some cases, as discussed, exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution and directed the insurer to satisfy the award of the Tribunal and recover the amount from the insured, even after coming to the conclusion that there was no liability on the part of the insurer but in order to uphold the main object of Section 149(1) and 149(2) of the Act, particularly in Shamanna's case and subsequent rulings of the apex court. Though there are divergent decisions of the apex Court both prior to and after the decision in Swaran Singh, we find there is a strong, continuous, consistency in following the principles laid down by the apex Court in Swaran Singh's case which is of a larger Bench compared to all other Benches subsequent to it, particularly the principles with reference to the concept of pay and recovery. That is to say, on the purpose and concept of fundamental breach and also the liability of the insurer to satisfy the award inspite of satisfactorily proving a defence under Section 149(2) of the Act, to pay and recover from the insured. Precisely, as per the decision in Swaran Singh, even when the insurer has proved the breach on the part of the insured considering the policy condition and even if the said breach of condition is fundamental and which has contributed to the cause of accident, the Tribunal can interpret the policy condition on the basis of rule of main purpose and concept of fundamental breach with reference to Section 149(1) and(2). Even if the Tribunal is to arrive at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions under Section 149(2) read with sub Section (7) of section 149 of the Act, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer make the payment and recover the same from the insured, which, it has been compelled to pay to third party under the award by the Tribunal.

5. At this stage, itself it may be sated that in Subramanyam, a Division Bench of this Court held that a pay and recovery order is not permissible under Section 149 of the Act and when an Insurance Company proves any of the defences under section 149(2) of the Act, it would be absolved of its liability. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Subramanyam came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shamanna vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited [(2018) 9 SCC 650] (Shamanna). While considering the correctness of the judgment passed by this court in Shamanna's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on referring to National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh and others [(2004) 3 SCC 297] (Swaran Singh) and the subsequent decisions in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut [(2007) 3 SCC 700] (Laxmi Narain Dhut) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Parvathneni [(2009) 8 SCC 785] (Parvathneni), held that in Parvathneni, the correctness of the decisions regarding exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount even though the Insurance Company had no liability to pay was doubted and the matter was referred to a Larger Bench of three Judges. But the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the matter keeping open the question of law to be decided in an appropriate case. Thus, in Shamanna's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on referring to the above development, has observed that the question of law is left open to be decided in an appropriate case, but the decisions in Swaran Singh followed in Laxman Dhut hold the field.