Bombay HC: Acceptance Of Insurance Claim Under Protest Not 'Accord And Satisfaction

However, in the present case, there is no admitted claim, and the controversy concerns the application of the principle of accord and satisfaction in light of the claimant's letter dated 16th October 2018 and the discharge voucher signed under protest. I have already recorded reasons that the said letter and the discharge voucher cannot be accepted as a full and final settlement of the claim. Hence, in view of the well-established legal principles as discussed in the above paragraphs, the said letter and the discharge voucher cannot be accepted as accord and satisfaction of the claim. {Para 13}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 30675 of 2023

Decided On: 18.03.2026

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Add On Retail Pvt. Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Gauri Godse, J.

Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:6861,MANU/MH/2641/2026

Print Page

Karnataka HC: Claimant Can't Seek Compensation From Offending Vehicle's Insurer If Already Received From Own Insurance Company

It is relevant to note that the claimant claimed a sum of Rs.1,41,516/- towards property damage from the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle. The claimant was examined as PW1. In the cross examination, he states that he has received the entire amount towards the damage of the property from his Insurance company. Admittedly, damaged vehicle was insured with the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company and the claimant has received the full and final settlement of his claim without any reservation or demur. In the absence of any material to show that the claim paid by his Insurance Company represented a part only of the total damage, the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the claim for any further payment. I, therefore, see no merit in the contention of the claimant that the claimant is entitled to compensation for the damaged property.

Furthermore, in HARKHU BAI's case, the Division Bench has held that if the claimant has received the amount in full and final settlement of his claim without any reservation or demur, he cannot claim further payment from the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle. As already noted above, in the present case, the claimant has received the amount from his Insurance Company as full and final settlement. Hence, he cannot claim further payment from the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle. Hence, the contention regarding tortuous liability must necessarily fail.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 5788 of 2013 (MV-DM)

Decided On: 22.04.2024

Kumarvel Janakiram Vs. The National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Jyothi Mulimani, J.

Citation: 2024:KHC:15862,MANU/KA/1798/2024

Print Page

Kerala HC Summarises law on liability of parents and Guardian of minor in case of rash driving by minor

 Since the issues raised in these petitions are seminal in nature, the following propositions are culled out from the above discussion for appropriate guidance and action by all authorities.

(i). The offence under section 199A of the MV Act is sui generis and

is an independent offence.

(ii). The commission of an offence under the MV Act by the juvenile

is an essential ingredient of section 199A of the MV Act, however, a finding regarding the commission of an offence under the MV Act by the juvenile as per section 17 or 18 of the JJ Act, is not a sine qua non for initiating proceedings against the guardian or owner of the motor vehicle under the said section.

(iii). Proceedings against the guardian of a juvenile or owner of a

motor vehicle under section 199A of the MV Act can be initiated if

information regarding the commission of an offence by the juvenile has been recorded in the General Diary. The recording of information in the General Diary has to be followed by the submission of a Social

Background Report of the child in Form No.1 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, without undue delay and at any rate, atleast along with the final report.

(iv). The final report in relation to the offence allegedly committed by the juvenile ought to be submitted before the Juvenile Justice Board at the earliest, preferably within two months of recording the information in the General Diary. The period of two months mentioned in Rule 10(6) of the Model Rules is only a directory provision and is not mandatory.

(v). As the JJ Act does not contemplate any charge to be framed

against a juvenile for a petty offence, the decisions in Polachan V. State of Kerala [Crl.M.C No. 7479/2022] Sameera v. State of Kerala [2023 KHC Online 9217] as well as in Khairunnisa v. State of Kerala [2023 SCC Online Ker. 4265] are per incuriam.

(vi). The inquiry against the juvenile before the Juvenile Justice

Board shall be conducted according to the procedure prescribed for the trial of petty offences under the Cr.P.C.

(vii). The inquiry against the juvenile for driving a motor vehicle

without a license if any alleged, must be completed by the Juvenile Justice Board within four months of the date fixed for hearing after filing the final report or if any extension is granted for two months further, within the said extended period. As section 14(4) of the JJ Act is a mandatory provision, if the inquiry proceeding against the juvenile is not completed before the JJB within the period mentioned therein, the proceeding against the minor will become statutorily terminated under section 14(4) of the JJ Act.

(viii). If the inquiry proceeding against the minor is terminated under section 14(4) of the JJ Act, or if the JJB comes to the conclusion under section 17 of the JJ Act that the juvenile has not committed the offence, the proceedings against the guardian or owner under section 199A of the MV Act cannot continue thereafter and the accused will have to be acquitted or discharged, as the case may be. {Para 27}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

 CRL.MC NO. 34 OF 2024

SHARAFUDHEEN  Vs    STATE OF KERALA

MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

Dated: 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 

Citation: 2024:KER:44617

Print Page

Madras HC: Under which circumstances the court can direct forwarding of complaint to police under S 151 of CPC?

 In the case on hand, since, as I have already pointed out, the offence of forgery of Exs. A2 and A3 was committed outside the Court, even before they were produced before the Court, there can be no impediment for the police to register a case. When it was pointed out by this Court to the learned counsel on either side that this Court has power to issue a direction to the Tahsildar, Tambaram to forward a complaint to the police in respect of the above offence of forgery, for registration of a criminal case so as to investigate the same thoroughly to find out the real culprits, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that such power is not available for this Court in a civil proceedings. Of course, it is true that there is no express provision in the Civil Procedure Code specifically empowering a Civil Court to issue a direction either to a party or to a witness to make a complaint to the police. But at the same time, it needs to be noted that there is no prohibition, either express or implied, thereby prohibiting a Civil Court from issuing any direction to a party or a witness to forward a complaint to the police when a serious offence of forgery is alleged. {Para 59}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Second Appeal No. 479 of 2012 and M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2012

Decided On: 30.03.2015

N. Natarajan Vs. The Executive Officer

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Nagamuthu, J.

Citation: MANU/TN/0811/2015

Print Page