Allowed

Rajinder Kumar v. Singh Ram and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Mar 2021FAO/936/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge disposed of a principal appeal filed against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Award by recording an out-of-court oral compromise. The parties agreed to release an additional sum of ₹1,30,000 over the Tribunal award, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of in terms of the oral settlement, with an additional sum of ₹1,30,000 paid to the appellant.

Rajinder Kumar Vs Singh Ram and Ors. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2021)

¶1

CM-2491-CII-2021 in/and FAO-936-2015

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CM-2491-CII-2021 in/and FAO-936-2015 Date of decision: - 09.03.2021

Rajinder Kumar

....Appellant

Versus

Singh Ram and others

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

¶11

Present:Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for applicant-respondent No.3/Insurance Company. Mr. S.K. Biriwal, Advocate for the non-applicant/appellant. (keeping in view the advance copy given).

¶12

¶13

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL)

¶14

CM-2491-CII-2021

¶15

Present application has been filed for preponing the hearing of the main appeal i.e. FAO-936-2015 and for disposing of the same in view of the compromise, which has been entered between the parties i.e. the Insurance Company and the claimant.

¶16

Learned counsel for applicant-respondent No.3/Insurance Company argues that the parties have already reached an out of Court settlement with regard to their dispute, which has been raised in the

¶17

NARESH KUMAR 2021.03.24 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

-2-

¶19

CM-2491-CII-2021 in/and FAO-936-2015

¶20

present appeal and pray that present appeal be disposed of in terms of said oral compromise by preponing the date of hearing of the main appeal i.e. FAO-936-2015.

¶21

Notice of the application to the learned opposite counsel.

¶22

Mr. S.K. Biriwal, Advocate, who has joined the proceedings through video conference, accepts notice on behalf of the nonapplicant/appellant and does not dispute the averments made on behalf of the applicant/respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

¶23

In view the above, the application is allowed and on the request of learned counsel for the parties, the main appeal is taken up for hearing today itself.

¶24

FAO-936-2015

¶25

In the present appeal, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, allowed a compensation of `2,97,863/- in favour of the appellant/claimant. Feeling aggrieved by the said compensation, the present appeal was filed.

¶26

During the pendency of the present appeal, this Court has been informed that the parties have already settled their dispute in an out of Court oral settlement, according to which, apart from the amount awarded by the Tribunal i.e. 2,97,863/-, another consolidated sum of 1,30,000/- will be released in favour of the claimant. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respective parties confirm the said oral agreement and jointly pray that the present appeal be also disposed of in terms of the oral settlement recorded above.

¶27

NARESH KUMAR 2021.03.24 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶28

CM-2491-CII-2021 in/and FAO-936-2015

¶29

-3-

¶30

Keeping in view the above, the present appeal is disposed of in terms of the oral agreement noticed above, according to which, the appellant/claimant has been paid another sum of 1,30,000/- through cheque in the Court today i.e. over and above the amount of 2,97,863/awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana.

¶31

Efforts of learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3-Insurance Company for settling large number of cases are appreciated by this Court. This endeavour on the part of the Insurance Company is also mitigating the financial hardship being faced by the claimants. These efforts should continue in future as well.

¶32

March 09, 2021 naresh.k

¶33

( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ) JUDGE

¶34

Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes Whether reportable? No

¶35

NARESH KUMAR 2021.03.24 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Rajinder Kumar v. Singh Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajinder Kumar v. Singh Ram 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

J.K Praveena Kumari Vs the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council of Haryana and Anr.

Sukhwinder Singh Vs Punjab State Warehousing Corporation and Others

Anaj Mandi Association Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Hari Ram & Ors. Vs Rajesh Bhatiya & Anr.

Subhash Chander Malik Vs State of Haryana and Others

Narinder Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Others