LOKESH KUMAR vs UNITED INDIA ASSURANCLEL CO. LTD. — FAO/2670/2012

Case under No Acts Defined. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010940022012

Filing Number

FAO/2670/2012

Filing Date

23-Apr-2012

Registration No

FAO/2670/2012

Registration Date

03-May-2012

Judge

Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma

Coram

Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma

Bench Type

Single

Category

500.27 - APPL FILED BY CLAIMANT FOR ENHANCE IN GEN CASES ( 892 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL REVISION BRANCH-I

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

No Acts Defined

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.LOKESH KUMAR

    Adv. AMIT JAIN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UNITED INDIA ASSURANCLEL CO. LTD.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mrs. Justice Sudeepti SharmaView PDF

    Case Summary: Lokesh Kumar v. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed Lokesh Kumar's appeal, overturning the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's dismissal of his claim. The court held that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the petition on maintainability grounds, finding that under a comprehensive insurance policy (unlike "Act Only" policies), an insurer cannot avoid liability by arguing the claimant stepped into the owner's shoes. The court converted the claim from Section 163-A to Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, awarding Kumar ₹2.5 lakhs for grievous injuries sustained as a pillion rider in a motorcycle accident, plus 9% interest from the petition filing date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Apr-2012

    Case filed

    Registration No. FAO/2670/2012

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Lokesh Kumar v. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed Lokesh Kumar's appeal, overturning the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's dismissal of his claim. The court held that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the petition on maintainability grounds, finding that under a comprehensive insurance policy (unlike "Act Only" policies), an insurer cannot avoid liability by arguing the claimant stepped into the owner's shoes. The court converted the claim from Section 163-A to Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, awarding Kumar ₹2.5 lakhs for grievous injuries sustained as a pillion rider in a motorcycle accident, plus 9% interest from the petition filing date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case