IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 110 CR-7580-2025 Date of Decision.: 28.04.2026 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. …..Pe//oner Vs. Baldev Singh and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for the peoner. Mr. Kishan Garg, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. None for respondent Nos.3 and 4. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present peon under Arcle 227 of the Constuon of India has been filed by the peoner–Insurance Company, laying challenge to the order dated 06.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Execung Court in Execuon Peon No.83 of 2020, whereby the peoner has been directed to pay an amount of ₹5,58,322/- to respondent Nos.1 and 2 (parents of the deceased), with liberty to recover the same from respondent Nos.3 and 4 (widow and minor son of the deceased). 2. The factual backdrop reveals that on account of the death of Mandeep Singh in a motor vehicular accident, a claim peon under Secon 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was instuted by his legal representaves. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, vide award dated 03.12.2013, assessed compensaon at ₹24,20,296/- along with interest @ 6% per annum and apporoned the same by granng 20% to the NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.29 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7580-2025 parents (10% each) and 80% to the widow and minor son (40% each). In compliance thereof, the peoner–Insurance Company deposited the enre awarded amount ₹28,77,190/- way back on 06.02.2014. 3. Aggrieved by the quantum, and apporonment, separate appeals were preferred before this Court by the claimants – one by parents and the other by widow & son of the deceased. Vide common judgment dated 05.11.2019 of this court, the compensaon was enhanced to ₹42,48,988/- and the apporonment was modified, entling the parents to 30% (15% each) and the widow & minor son to 70% (35% each). The peoner–Insurance Company, in compliance with the modified award, deposited the enhanced amount along with applicable interest - ₹32,24,259/-. 4. It is not in dispute that the enre liability arising out of the award, as modified by this Court, stands sasfied. 5. Subsequently, respondent Nos.1 and 2 (parents of the deceased) approached the Execung Court claiming that, in view of the enhanced apporonment, they were entled to an addional sum, as under the original award they had received only 10% each. The Execung Court, accepng their plea, directed the peoner–Insurance Company to pay an amount of ₹5,58,322/- to them, while granng liberty to recover the said amount (to the extent of 10%, excluding interest) from respondent Nos.3 &4. 6. Assailing the said order, learned counsel for the peoner submits that once the enre compensaon, both under the original award and as enhanced by this Court, has been deposited, no further liability can be fastened upon the insurer. It is contended that any imbalance arising on account of change in apporonment is a maAer inter se between the claimants and the Execung Court has exceeded its jurisdicon in direcng Page No. 2 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.29 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7580-2025 the insurer to make fresh payment. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 supports the impugned order by contending that the parents are entled to their revised share in terms of the judgment passed by this Court and the Execung Court has rightly ensured compliance thereof. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the pares and perused the record, this Court finds that the impugned order cannot be sustained. 9. It is an admiAed posion that the peoner–Insurance Company has discharged its enre liability by deposing the compensaon amount as determined by the Tribunal and further as enhanced by this Court. The modificaon brought about by this Court in its judgment dated 05.11.2019 pertains to the apporonment of the awarded amount amongst the claimants and does not create any addional or connuing liability upon the insurer once the total awarded amount has been sasfied. 10. The Execung Court, while passing the impugned order, has proceeded on an erroneous premise by direcng the insurer to pay the differenal amount to respondent Nos.1 and 2 and thereaEer recover the same from respondent Nos.3 and 4. Such a course is clearly beyond the scope of execuon proceedings. It is well seAled that an Execung Court cannot travel beyond the decree, nor can it impose a liability, which is not contemplated therein. 11. In the present case, if by virtue of the modified apporonment, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have received an amount in excess of their entlement, the remedy lies in effecng recovery from them. The liability to adjust such excess payment is purely inter se between the claimants and cannot be shiEed upon the insurer, who has already sasfied the decree in its enrety. Page No. 3 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.29 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7580-2025 12. The direcon issued by the Execung Court, in effect, creates a fresh liability upon the peoner–Insurance Company, which is impermissible in law. The further observaon permiFng the insurer to recover the amount from other claimants also does not cure the inherent illegality, as, such a mechanism is not contemplated in the decree and amounts to re-wring the mode of its execuon. 13. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 06.10.2025 suffers from patent illegality and jurisdiconal error and, therefore, warrants interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdicon under Arcle 227 of the Constuon of India. 14. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. It is, however, clarified that respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall be at liberty to seek recovery of the differenal amount, if any, from respondent Nos.3 and 4 in accordance with law, and the Execung Court shall take appropriate steps to facilitate such recovery, if so sought. 15. The present peon stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE April 28, 2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 4 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.29 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document