LexStreak
Read free →
Madras High Court· 08 September 2026

Must an insurer satisfy a third-party award first and recover from the insured where a fundamental breach of policy conditions is proved?

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD v. P.ANILKUMAR
CMA.3505/2021 · CMA No. 3505 of 2021
Coram: Justice M.Jothiraman
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.61 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

An insurer must satisfy a third-party award first and recover from the insured where a fundamental breach of policy conditions is proved.

Yes. An insurer must satisfy a third-party award first and recover from the insured where a fundamental breach of policy conditions is proved. In cases of third-party claims against the insurer, the principle of pay and recovery applies even if the insured has committed a fundamental breach.

Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s.61 — s.66 — Third-party claim — Fundamental breach of policy conditions — Pay and recover — Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s.147 — Third-party risk — Pay and recover — Held: An insurer must satisfy a third-party award first and recover from the insured, the principle of pay and recover applying even where a fundamental breach of policy conditions is proved. (¶14) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s.61 — Unregistered trailer — Liability of the tractor's insurer — Held further: The insurer of a tractor is liable for third-party compensation though an unregistered trailer was attached to it, the trailer having no independent motor of its own. (¶14) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s.149 — Driving licence — Onus on the insurer — Held further: The onus lies on the insurer to prove that the driver held no valid driving licence and that policy conditions were breached. Appeal partly allowed. (¶13, 15)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 14As per the evidence of PW1, Trailer was attached with Tractor and on perusal of Ex.R2 = Ex.P5 – copy of the Insurance Policy shows that the Insurance Policy was issued only in respect of the Tractor only bearing Reg.No.TN 83 W 5427 and no details of the Trailer attached was neither mentioned nor any premium was received by the Insurance Company covering any liability. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the judgment of this Court dated 22.02.2021 in CMA.No.1640 of 2017 [Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Lakshmi and Others] wherein it has been held as follows:
Acts & Sections
s.61 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s.66 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD v. P.ANILKUMAR — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Is the insurer of a tractor liable for third-party compensation though an unregistered trailer was attached to it?Does the onus lie on the insurer to prove that the driver had no valid driving licence and that policy conditions were breached?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections