NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusSEBASTIAN K. JACOB

                          [2009] 4 S.C.R. 786


A                NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
                                V.
                      SEBASTIAN K. JACOB
                                                                         ...
                  Civil Appeal No. 1748 of 2009
                         MARCH 20, 2009
B
     [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY,
                           JJ.]

        Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Motor accident - Motor
  Accident Tribunal awarding compensation - Insurance
c company denying its liability on the ground that the claimant
  was already compensated by another Insurance Company for
  the same cause of action - Earlier payment not disputed -
  Award upheld by High Court.:.. Insurance Company agreeing
  to pay the difference between amount claimed and the amount
D already paid - Held: As the claim is for the whole amount and
  not for the difference of amount, matter remitted to High Court
  to reconsider the matter.
         CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1748
    of 2009
E
         From the Judgement and Order dated 06.02.2006 of the
    Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakumal in MFA No. 20 of
    2003.
         M.K. Dua, Kishore Rawat, Dhiraj, for the Appellants.
F
         The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
         DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
         1. Leave granted.
G        2. The controversy lies within a very narrow compass. The   ...__
    appellant had filed appeal before the Kerala High Court
    questioning the correctness of a judgment rendered by Motor
    Accident Claims Tribunal, Thalassery. The award was passed

H                                786
            NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. SEBASTIAN K. 787
         JACOB STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

         in favour of the respondent allowing him to realize a sum of A
         Rs.24,033/-with interest with proportionate cost from the driver,
         owner and present appellant jointly and severally payable by
         the present appellant. According to the appellant, the insurer is
         not liable to make the payment since the claimant is already
         compensated by another Insurance Company by paying 8
         Rs.21,700/- for the same cause of action consequent to the same
         accident. Therefore, it was submitted that the respondent was
         not entitled to double payment of compensation. The High Court
         did not accept the plea and upheld the award of MACT.

               3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in C
         respect of the very same claim, the matter was settled by another
         Insurance Company. It was accepted by the claimant that he
         had settled his claim with the insurer of the jeep. But according
         to him that is of no consequence and did not debar him from
         making a claim under the statutory liability against the tortfeasor. D
         Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there cannot
         be double benefit in respect of the same accident. The claimant
         had accepted that he had settled the matter and received the
         money in respect of the jeep in question. There was no scope
         for granting a further relief.
                                                                             E
              4. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent.
               5. It conceded that if there is difference of amount the
         appellant has to pay the same, but that is not the case in the
         present scenario. The claimant claims the whole amount. The
         earlier payment is not disputed. In fact, the Oriental Insurance F
         Company Ltd. has clearly accepted that the vehicle collided with
         the stage carriage on 13.7.1995 and the damage claim was
         settled for Rs.21,700/- on 6.12.1995. The High Court does not
         appear to have considered this aspect in the proper perspective.

... -·   Therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the High court G
         and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration.
              6. The appeal is allowed.

         K.K.T.                                          Appeal allowed.