IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 06.11.2025.

Pronounced on: 22.12.2025.

Uploaded on: 22.12.2025.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.

….Petitioner Versus Manish Kumar Gupta and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Argued by: Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

None for respondent No.1. Mr. Raghav Bali, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J The instant petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails order dated 22.12.2015 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Motor Accident Claims MACT, Ambala (for short the ‘MACT’).

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that the respondent/claimant (Manish Kumar Gupta) met with an accident on 12.05.2007. He instituted a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MV Act’) for the grant of compensation. The MACT disposed of the said petition vide award dated 18.08.2010. Compensation of `24,42,000/- was awarded to the respondent/claimant.

3. Aggrieved by the award, the petitioner-Insurance Company instituted FAO No.7028 of 2010 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Manish Kumar Gupta. Vide order dated 08.12.2010 (Annexure P-1), notice of motion was issued and disbursal of amount beyond `10,00,000/- was stayed with the condition that the entire amount would be deposited (in terms of the award) within a period of eight weeks.

4. It is the admitted case of the parties that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the entire amount inclusive of interest (`28,10,781/-) was deposited by the Insurance Company with the MACT.

5. Subsequently, FAO No.4674 of 2011 was instituted by the claimants seeking enhancement in compensation.

6. Both appeals vis FAO No.7028 of 2010 and FAO No.4674 of 2011 were dismissed vide judgment/order dated 06.10.2012 (Annexure P-2). 7. Thereafter, execution application (Annexure P-3) was instituted by the respondent-claimant stating that on account of the stay order having been passed, the balance amount could not be received by the respondent- claimant till 18.05.2013 when `16,85,781/- was paid to him (after `11,25,000/- having been disbursed on 01.02.2011). Under the circumstances, interest on the amount beyond `11,25,000/- was claimed from 01.02.2011 till 18.05.2013 at the rate of 27.5% per annum which as per the respondent-claimant came to `3,80,000/-.

8. An objection application (Annexure P-4) was filed by the respondent-Insurance Company stating that no interest was payable by the Insurance Company since it had deposited the entire amount before the MACT and the same could not be disbursed on account of a stay order having been passed by the High Court. Reply to the objection application (Annexure P-5) was submitted opposing the objections.

9. Vide the impugned order dated 22.12.2015, the MACT ordered the Insurance Company to pay the interest for the period in question, leading to the filing of the instant revision petition.

10. Learned counsel for the parties were heard.

11. Sh. Vishal Aggarwal, learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable. He submitted that the entire amount, inclusive of interest, as awarded by the MACT was duly deposited by the petitioner with the MACT and, therefore, under the circumstances, the Insurance Company would not be liable to pay any further interest.

12. Per contra, it was submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that there is no illegality in the impugned order. It was submitted that the stay was granted by the High Court at the instance of the Insurance Company in the appeal filed by it and, therefore, now, it would not be open for the Insurance Company to turn around and say that it is not liable to pay interest.

13. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

14. Facts are largely admitted. Award dated 18.08.2010 was passed by the MACT, ordering compensation of