Allowed¶15

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sonia Devi and Ors.

Motor Accidents – Release of awarded compensation

Himachal Pradesh HC20 Mar 2026CMP/787/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

OIC vs. Sonia Devi and others; FAO No.167 of 2022; CMP No.787 of 2026; release of motor accident compensation; Rs.32,54,000/-; interest 6% per annum; fatal accident dated 05.11.2020; Driving Licence of driver objection; insurance company appellant; documents of bus in order; 50% share release with proportionate interest; identity verification; Bipin C. Negi, Judge; decided 20.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Release of 50% of each applicant's share of the awarded compensation along-with proportionate accrued interest, remitted to the bank accounts detailed in Paragraph-4 of the application, subject to proper verification of identities. ¶15

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sonia Devi and Ors. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicants/legal heirs are entitled to release of their apportioned share of the MACT award, the release being opposed by the appellant Insurance Company solely on the merits with respect to the Driving Licence of the driver of the ill fated vehicle.

¶13

Court's answer

The issue qua the Driving Licence of the ill fated vehicle has been appropriately dealt with in the Tribunal's award, and the necessary requisite documents of the bus also appear to be in order.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Both applicants are held entitled to 50% of their respective shares along-with proportionate interest accrued thereupon, to be remitted to the bank accounts detailed in Paragraph-4 of the application, subject to proper verification of their identities.

¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Accidents - Release of awarded compensation - CMP No.787 of 2026 in FAO No.167 of 2022 (OIC vs. Sonia Devi and others): Fatal accident of 05.11.2020; Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.32,54,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, plus litigation cost, apportioned equally amongst the applicants and three minor children; no amount released till date. Release application opposed by the appellant Insurance Company solely on the merits qua the Driving Licence of the driver of the ill fated vehicle. Court found the licence issue appropriately dealt with in the award and the requisite documents of the bus in order; held both applicants entitled to 50% of their shares with proportionate accrued interest, to be remitted to the bank accounts detailed in Paragraph-4 of the application, subject to proper verification of identities. Application allowed and disposed of (Bipin C. Negi, Judge; 20.03.2026).

¶1

OIC vs. Sonia Devi and others

¶2

FAO No.167 of 2022

¶3

20.03.2026 Present:

¶4

Mr. Sambhav Bhasin, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶5

Mr. Mohit Jaitak, Advocate through video conferencing, for respondent No.1 & 5/applicants.

¶6

Ms. Shashi Kiran, Advocate, as Court Guardian, for respondents No.2 to 4.

¶7

Ms. Tamanna Sharma, Advocate, vice Ms. Rachna Kuthiala, Advocate, for respondents No.6 & 7.

¶8

CMP No.787 of 2026

¶9

The accident, in the case at hand, had taken place on 05.11.2020. The deceased was the husband of applicant No.1 and the son of applicant No.2, i.e., respondent No.5. On account of his death, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.32,54,000/-. The said amount was to carry an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. Litigation cost had also been awarded. As per the award, the amount of compensation was ordered to be equally apportioned amongst the applicants and three minor children. Till date, no amount has been released in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased.

¶10

In the application for release, it is submitted that the deceased was the sole bread earner of the family. While arguing, it is further submitted that the money is required for the education, medical and general needs of the family.

¶11

The application is vehemently opposed by the counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicant/appellant/Insurance

¶12

Company, in the case at hand, upon whom the liability has been fastened.

¶13

The sole contention urged is on the merit of the matter and specifically with respect to the Driving Licence of the Driver of the ill fated vehicle, in question.

¶14

From perusal of the award, it appears that the issue qua the Driving Licence of the ill fated vehicle has been appropriately dealt with. Besides the aforesaid, the necessary requisite documents of the bus, in the case at hand, also appear to be in order.

¶15

Keeping in view the aforesaid, the present application is allowed. Both the applicants are held entitled to 50% of their share(s) along-with proportionate interest accrued there upon. The same be remitted in the bank account of the applicants, detailed in Paragraph-4 of the application, subject to proper verification of their identities.

¶16

The application stands disposed of.

¶17

March 20, 2026 (KS)

¶18

( Bipin C. Negi ) Judge

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sonia Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sonia Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narender Kumar Vs Shiv Lal Yadav S/O Gopi Chand Yadav

Gian Kaur Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Another

Prince Vs Director General Defenece Estates

Partap Singh (Deceased through LRs Balbir and Others) Vs Renuka Ji Dam Project Hppcl and Others

Ankush Kumar @ Gharati Vs State of Hp

New India Assurance Company Vs Vijay Kumar and Anr.