REPORTABLE         

                                                                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   1748       OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.12621/2007)

National Insurance Co. Ltd.           ….Appellant  

Versus

Sebastian K. Jacob ….Respondent

J U D G M E N T

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

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 in favour of the respondent allowing him to realize a sum

of 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 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 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.

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.  

4. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent.  

2

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  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 and remit the matter to it for

fresh consideration.  

6. The appeal is allowed.       

………………......................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)              

         ……..……….........................J.

        (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) New Delhi, March 20, 2009

3