Allowed

Mehardian v. Vimlesh Kumar Yadav and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jul 2015FAO/655/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal sought additional compensation of ₹20,000 beyond the Tribunal's award. The insurance company accepted this proposal. The appeal was disposed of with an order directing the respondent insurance company to pay the additional sum by cheque within two months.

What did the court decide?

Respondent insurance company directed to pay ₹20,000 more by cheque within two months to be deposited with the Tribunal for payment to the appellant.

Mehardian Vs Vimlesh Kumar Yadav and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2015) — LawSathi Research

¶1

F.A.O. No.655 of 2007 (O&M)

¶2

[1]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

F.A.O. No.655 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09 July, 2015

Mehardin

...Appellant

Versus

Vimlesh Kumar Yadav & Ors.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶11

Present: Mr.Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶12

Mr.Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶13

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J. (Oral)

¶17

CM-3112-CII-2007

¶18

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and

¶19

going through the contents of the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, the application for condonation of delay of 165 days in filing the appeal is allowed.

¶20

Civil Misc.Application disposed of.

¶21

FAO-655-2007

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that in

¶23

addition to the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, if respondent No.3-Insurance Company is ready to pay `20,000/-

¶24

SEEMA RANI 2015.07.10 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

F.A.O. No.655 of 2007 (O&M)

¶26

[2]

¶27

(Rupees Twenty thousand) more, then the appellant/ claimant shall be satisfied.

¶28

Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company of the offending vehicle has accepted the proposal put up by learned counsel for the appellant.

¶29

Learned counsel for the parties submit that in view of the above submissions suffered by them, the present appeal be disposed of.

¶30

Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the present appeal is disposed of with a direction that respondent No.3/insurance company, in addition to the award passed by learned Tribunal, shall pay ` 20,000/(Rupees Twenty thousand) more by way of a cheque within two months of passing of this order, to be deposited with Learned Tribunal, for payment to the appellant/ claimant.

¶31

July 09, 2015 (Naresh Kumar Sanghi) seema Judge

¶32

SEEMA RANI 2015.07.10 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Mehardian v. Vimlesh Kumar Yadav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehardian v. Vimlesh Kumar Yadav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Jiwan Kumar Mittal Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Verma Rabbits Farms Vs M/S Worldwide Group of Farming etc.

Madhukar Mittal Vs Hsamb

Parhlad Singh Vs State of Punjab

Kailash Rani and Ors. Vs Bhim Sain and Anr.

Bimla Devi Vs Amar Kumar & Ors.