Allowed

Parkash v. Kul Bhusha @ Banti and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Oct 2011FAO/5315/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This oral judgment allows an appeal filed by a mule-cart owner against the Insurance Company seeking enhancement of compensation. The Court condones the 93-day delay and enhances the award by Rs. 20,000 to account for the loss of livelihood caused by the death of the appellant's mule in the accident.

What did the court decide?

Allowed; award modified by adding Rs. 20,000 to be paid within 45 days with 7.5% p.a. interest thereafter.

Parkash Vs Kul Bhusha @ Banti and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

FAO NO. 5315 of 2010 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

FAO NO. 5315 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 4.10.2011

Prakash

....Appellant

Versus

Kul Bhushan @ Banti and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶10

Present: Mr.AK Sharma, Advocate for the appellant

¶11

Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for respondent-Insurance Company.

¶12

¶13

Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral)

¶14

CM No. 23418 CII of 2011

¶15

For the reasons enumerated in the application, delay of 93 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.

¶16

Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶17

FAO No. 5315 of 2010

¶18

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind (for short 'the Tribunal') on account of the injuries received by the appellant in the accident.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant remained idle since his mule died in the accident. It was after he received

¶20

FAO NO. 5315 of 2010 (O&M) 2

¶21

the compensation amount from the respondent that he purchased another mule and got repaired his cart .

¶22

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondentInsurance Company has opposed the prayer and stated that the adequate compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal and there is no scope of enhancement.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully.

¶24

It is a case of least state of income. The mule cart is stated to be the only source of income of livelihood of the appellant. In the accident, the mule had died and the appellant remained without work till the payment of the compensation.

¶25

Keeping in view the fact that he remained without any work for considerable period, this Court feels that ends of justice would sufficiently be met, if over and above the amount already awarded, an amount of Rs.20,000/- more is granted.

¶26

In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and the award dated 21.12.2009 is modified to the extent indicated above. The enhanced amount i.e. `20,000/- shall be paid to the appellant within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the present appeal, till the payment is made.

¶27

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶28

4.10.2011 gsv

Parkash v. Kul Bhusha @ Banti and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parkash v. Kul Bhusha @ Banti and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Major Singh Vs Narinder Singh & Ors.

Smt. Parkash Kaur etc. Vs Municipal Corporation Jalandhar

Amarjeet Kaur Vs Ranvir Singh and Anr.

Jagbir Singh Vs Manjit Kaur and Ors.

Jagbir Singh Vs Kirandeep Kaur and Ors,.

Surja Ram Vs Satbir Singh & Ors.