Case Title: K. Nagendra vs. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

New Delhi, October 30, 2025: The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the fundamental principle of 'Pay and Recover' in motor accident cases where the offending vehicle breaches a policy condition—specifically, by deviating from its permitted route.

A bench led by Justice Sanjay Karol held that while a breach of the route permit is a clear violation of the insurance contract, the victim's dependents must receive compensation immediately. The insurer must pay the compensation amount first, but is then fully entitled to recover that entire sum from the vehicle owner.

The Tragic Facts and the Compensation Puzzle

The case centered around the unfortunate death of a man named Srinivasa alias Murthy, who was the sole breadwinner for his family, running a Shamiyana Centre and Ration Shop. He died after being hit by a bus while riding his motorcycle in October 2014.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) initially awarded his family ₹18.86 Lakh. However, the Karnataka High Court later reassessed the loss and significantly increased the compensation to ₹31.84 Lakh, factoring in his higher income, future prospects, and consortium amounts for his wife, son, and parents.

The Legal Knot: The Bus Took a Wrong Turn

The matter reached the Supreme Court because the Insurance Company challenged the High Court’s order, raising a critical defense: The offending bus was operating outside its permitted route.

The bus had a permit for the Bengaluru to Mysore route, but the accident occurred in Channapatna City, where the bus was not authorized to enter. The Insurance Company argued that this deviation amounted to a fundamental breach of the policy conditions, and therefore, they should not be liable to pay.

The Supreme Court’s Verdict: Balancing Justice

In its humanized yet firm reasoning, the Supreme Court addressed the conflict between the victim's right to compensation and the insurer’s contractual rights.

1. Justice for the Victim (The 'Pay' Principle)

The Court first focused on the victim's family, noting that to deny them compensation "simply because the accident took place outside the bounds of the permit... would be offensive to the sense of justice." The accident was not the victim's fault.

"To deny the victim/dependents of the victim compensation simply because the accident took place outside the bounds of the permit... would be offensive to the sense of justice, for the accident itself is for no fault of his. Then, the Insurance Company most certainly ought to pay."

2. Fairness for the Insurer (The 'Recover' Principle)

Simultaneously, the Court acknowledged the insurer’s position. An insurance contract is bound by certain terms (like adhering to the route permit). Expecting the insurer to bear the financial burden for a clear breach by the vehicle owner would be "unfair."

The Final Directive

By applying the well-established 'Pay and Recover' principle, the Court resolved the dilemma:

The Insurance Company must immediately pay the full awarded compensation of ₹31.84 Lakh to the deceased's family.
The Insurance Company is then granted the right to recover the entire amount from the owner of the bus, who was responsible for the breach of the permit condition.

The Court concluded that this approach, which balances the need for immediate compensation to the victim against the financial interests of the insurer, was "entirely justified and requires no interference."

JUDGEMENT LINK :

https://s3.courtbook.in/2025/10/K.-NAGENDRA.pdf