#Third Party Compensation

The Gauhati High Court held that an insurer remains liable to pay compensation to third-party victims under the 'pay and recover' principle even when the driver lacked a valid licence, affirming that such a violation does not absolve the insurer of statutory liability. The ruling reinforces Supreme Court precedent that policy breaches by the driver cannot prejudice innocent third parties' rights to compensation.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that an insurance company remains liable for third-party compensation under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, even if the vehicle lacked a valid permit. The court upheld the 'pay and recover' principle, allowing the insurer to later reclaim the amount from the vehicle owner, reinforcing strict liability for insurers in motor accident claims.

MP High Court reaffirms that insurance companies cannot evade third-party liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, even if the vehicle lacks a valid permit. The ruling mandates compensation to victims with recovery rights against the vehicle owner, reinforcing the 'pay and recover' doctrine under Section 149 of the Act.

Punjab & Haryana HC upholds insurer's right to recover compensation paid to third-party victims where the insured breached policy terms by attaching two overloaded trolleys to an agricultural tractor. The ruling reinforces that policy violations nullify insurer liability, shifting financial burden back to the insured.

Madhya Pradesh High Court reaffirms that insurers remain statutorily liable to compensate third parties in motor accidents even if the driver lacks a valid licence, with the right to recover the amount from the vehicle owner/driver. The ruling enhances compensation to Rs. 50,000 and underscores the insurer’s obligation under Section 149 MV Act, protecting victims’ rights while balancing insurer recourse.

Karnataka High Court reinforces that insurers cannot evade liability for passenger compensation under Act Liability Only Policies, affirming the 'pay and recover' principle. The ruling mandates immediate payment to victims, with insurers retaining the right to recover from vehicle owners, ensuring statutory compliance under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court reaffirms that under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, ownership is defined by RTO registration, not private sale agreements. This means sellers remain legally and financially responsible for accidents until ownership is formally transferred, placing the burden on buyers and sellers to complete RTO formalities to avoid liability.

HP High Court rules insurers cannot deny third-party compensation merely because the driver held a forged licence, unless the insured knowingly permitted an unlicensed driver. The burden of proof rests on the insurer to establish the insured's complicity, reinforcing strict liability for third-party claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Chhattisgarh High Court holds insurer liable to pay third-party compensation even if premium cheque is dishonoured, unless cancellation notice reached insured prior to accident.

Chhattisgarh High Court holds insurers liable to indemnify third parties even if policy was issued post-accident, provided issuance occurred on same day, reinforcing statutory duty under MV Act.