Disposed

Renu Aggarwal v. Anil Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Dec 2025FAO/1025/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for grievous injuries caused by a rashly driven tractor. The court held the insurer liable to pay first with recovery rights against driver and owners, enhanced compensation by ₹50,000 by consent, reduced interest to 7.5%, and disposed of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of ₹50,000 without pendente lite interest; interest on original award of ₹45,385 reduced to 7.5%; insurer to pay entire award with recovery rights against driver and owners.

Renu Aggarwal Vs Anil Kumar — Insurance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

FAO-1025-2003 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

FAO-1025-2003

¶4

Date of decision: 05.12.2025

Renu Aggarwal

...Appellant

Versus

Anil Kumar and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr. Sagar Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the Insurance Company.

¶13

¶14

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶15

This appeal, filed in the year 2003, arises out of a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 05.04.2001 , involving tractor No. HR10D1491, which was being driven rashly and negligently. The appellantclaimant sustained serious injuries in the accident.

¶16

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, a7er considering the evidence on record, awarded ₹ 45,385/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of pe==on =ll realiza=on. The Tribunal held the driver and owners of the tractor liable, while exonera=ng the insurance company.

¶17

Seeking enhancement, Learned counsel for the appellantclaimant raises two principal conten=ons. First, it is argued that the offending vehicle was duly insured at the =me of the accident, and even if the driver lacked a valid and effec=ve driving licence for driving a tractor, the insurer could not have been completely exonerated. Relying on the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court in Na�onal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others , (2004) 3 SCC 297, and subsequent decisions, it is contended that the insurer, at best, could have been granted recovery rights a7er sa=sfying the award. The Tribunal’s omission to direct “pay and recover” is thus urged to be legally unsustainable.

¶18

YOGESH MEHTA 2025.12.08 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

FAO-1025-2003 [2]

¶20

The second conten=on relates to quantum. It is submiGed that the appellant suffered mul=ple grievous injuries, including a fracture of the right clavicle, fracture of four ribs, and permanent disfigurement of the face, as corroborated by PW-1 Dr. G.D. Sharma. The Tribunal, however, awarded meagre amounts under the heads of disability, pain and suffering, and special diet, and did not adequately account for the permanent facial disfigurement. It is argued that the award does not reflect just compensa=on as mandated under Sec=on 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶21

Respondents No.1 to 6 (driver and co-owners of the tractor) have remained absent despite service and were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 09.05.2019.

¶22

Learned counsel for the insurance company does not dispute that (i) the tractor was duly insured on the date of accident, and (ii) the only reason the Tribunal exonerated the insurer was the driver’s lack of a valid driving licence.

¶23

In light of the seGled law that breach of policy condi=ons does not exonerate the insurer vis-à-vis third-party claims, but only en=tles it to recovery against the insured, the Tribunal’s complete exonera=on of the insurer cannot legally stand.

¶24

In view of this seGled legal posi=on, the award of the Tribunal is modified to the limited extent that the insurer is held liable to first sa=sfy the awarded amount, with right of recovery against the driver and owners of the tractor.

¶25

Coming to quantum, it is noted that the original record has been destroyed, and except for the Tribunal’s findings, no other material is available. Nonetheless, the findings clearly establish four rib fractures, fracture of the clavicle, and permanent facial disfigurement. The Tribunal awarded amounts of ₹ 15,385/- towards medical expenses, ₹ 25,000/- for disabYOGESH MEHTA 2025.12.08 14:44 ility, ₹ 2,500/- towards pain and suffering, and ₹ 2,500/- towards special I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document diet, given the injuries established. These amounts are evidently inad-

¶26

FAO-1025-2003 [3]

¶27

equate to cons=tute “just compensa=on” within the meaning of Sec=on 168 of the Act.

¶28

A7er delibera=ons, learned counsel for the insurance company has, on instruc=ons, agreed to pay ₹ 50,000/- as enhanced compensa=on , over and above what the Tribunal awarded, without pendente lite interest. Learned counsel for the appellant accepts this offer but requests that the enhanced amount also carry interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal. Conversely, learned counsel for the insurer submits that the Tribunal’s rate of 9% is on the higher side and should be reduced to 7.5% , which is in line with prevailing judicial norms.

¶29

Having considered the submissions of both sides and keeping in view the age of the maGer, the nature of injuries, the absence of original record, and the need to balance equi=es, this appeal is disposed of with the following direc=ons:

¶30

The appellant shall be en=tled to the original compensa=on amount of ₹ 45,385/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe==on =ll actual realiza=on.

¶31

Over and above the above amount, the appellant shall be en=tled to ₹ 50,000/- as enhanced compensa=on, which shall not carry pendente lite interest . The insurance company shall pay this amount within 45 days from today. If the insurance company fails to pay the enhanced amount within the said period, the amount of ₹ 50,000/shall therea7er carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the expiry of the 45-day period un=l payment.

¶32

The insurance company shall sa=sfy the en=re award (original amount plus interest, as modified; and enhanced amount), with right of recovery against the driver and owners of the offending tractor.

¶33

Disposed of accordingly.

¶34

05.12.2025

¶35

Yogesh

¶36

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE

¶37

YOGESH MEHTA 2025.12.08 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

Whether speaking/reasoned:Yes/No Whether reportable:Yes/No

Renu Aggarwal v. Anil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renu Aggarwal v. Anil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulam Hussain and Ors. Vs Ismail and Ors.

Noor Mohammad Vs Sadiken and Ors.

Surender Vs Suresh Kumar etc.

Mohinder Singh Vs State Bank of Patiala.

Mohinder Singh Vs Harchand Singh etc.

(O&M) National Insurance Company Limited, Regi Vs Vikram Singh and Ors.