HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs MURTI AND OTHERS — FAO/1528/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC011995622025

Filing Number

FAO/77959/2025

Filing Date

08-Dec-2025

Registration No

FAO/1528/2026

Registration Date

17-Mar-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor

Coram

Mr. Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor

Category

500.16 - HDFC CHUBB GENERAL INSU. CO LTD. ( 882 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL REVISION BRANCH-I

Decision Date

15-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

    Adv. SANJEEV KODAN

  2. 2.MURTI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MURTI AND OTHERS

  2. 2.MURTI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Yashvir Singh RathorView PDF

    Case Summary: FAO/1528/2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company's appeals against a tribunal award dated 23.07.2025, upholding the insurer's joint and several liability to pay compensation of Rs.19,64,000 to Murti Devi and Others for deaths caused by rash driving of vehicle HR-55-V-5157. The court rejected the insurer's argument that the vehicle was not covered on the accident date (15.11.2021), finding that the insurer had issued and admitted liability under policy No.2315204202885100010 for that vehicle registration throughout the policy period (02.07.2021-01.07.2022), and thus could not escape indemnity obligations despite suspicious vehicle particulars and policy amendment irregularities. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. FAO/1528/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: FAO/1528/2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company's appeals against a tribunal award dated 23.07.2025, upholding the insurer's joint and several liability to pay compensation of Rs.19,64,000 to Murti Devi and Others for deaths caused by rash driving of vehicle HR-55-V-5157. The court rejected the insurer's argument that the vehicle was not covered on the accident date (15.11.2021), finding that the insurer had issued and admitted liability under policy No.2315204202885100010 for that vehicle registration throughout the policy period (02.07.2021-01.07.2022), and thus could not escape indemnity obligations despite suspicious vehicle particulars and policy amendment irregularities. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case