An insurance company's liability is fully discharged once the total awarded compensation is deposited. Any subsequent dispute regarding the apportionment of funds among claimants is an inter se matter and cannot be shifted to the insurer by the Executing Court, as it cannot travel beyond the decree.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner–Insurance Company, laying challenge to the order dated 06.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Executing Court in Execution Petition No.83 of 2020, whereby the petitioner 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 petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was instituted by his legal representatives. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, vide award dated 03.12.2013, assessed compensation at ₹24,20,296/- along with interest @ 6% per annum and apportioned the same by granting 20% to the parents (10% each) and 80% to the widow and minor son (40% each). In compliance thereof, the petitioner–Insurance Company deposited the entire awarded amount ₹28,77,190/- way back on 06.02.2014.

3. Aggrieved by the quantum, and apportionment, 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 compensation was enhanced to ₹42,48,988/- and the apportionment was modified, entitling the parents to 30% (15% each) and the widow & minor son to 70% (35% each). The petitioner–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 entire liability arising out of the award, as modified by this Court, stands satisfied.

5. Subsequently, respondent Nos.1 and 2 (parents of the deceased) approached the Executing Court claiming that, in view of the enhanced apportionment, they were entitled to an additional sum, as under the original award they had received only 10% each. The Executing Court, accepting their plea, directed the petitioner–Insurance Company to pay an amount of ₹5,58,322/- to them, while granting 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 petitioner submits that once the entire compensation, 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 apportionment is a maAer inter se between the claimants and the Executing Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in directing 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 entitled to their revised share in terms of the judgment passed by this Court and the Executing Court has rightly ensured compliance thereof.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that the impugned order cannot be sustained.

9. It is an admiAed position that the petitioner–Insurance Company has discharged its entire liability by depositing the compensation amount as determined by the Tribunal and further as enhanced by this Court. The modification brought about by this Court in its judgment dated 05.11.2019