Disposed¶23

Krishan Dev v. M/S Rajan Computers and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Dec 2025FAO/507/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FAO-507-2017 (O&M); Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; Nidhi Gupta, J.; decision date 02.12.2025; enhancement of motor accident compensation; ₹2,25,000/- MACT Ludhiana Award dated 02.05.2016; MACT No. 15 dated 07.05.2012; Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act 1988; Section 5 Limitation Act 1963; non-prosecution / repeated un-representation of appellant; National Lok Adalat and Daily Lok Adalat reference; fresh notice unserved, incomplete address; appeal disposed of with liberty to seek revival within six weeks; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; appeal disposed of with liberty to the appellant to move an appropriate application within six weeks (from 02.12.2025) for revival, if so advised; pending application(s), if any, disposed of. ¶23

Krishan Dev Vs M/S Rajan Computers and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Entitlement of the appellant-injured claimant to enhancement of the compensation of ₹2,25,000/- awarded by the MACT, Ludhiana. +1 more

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Issuance of fresh notice to the appellant would be a futile exercise; owing to pendency of the appeal for more than eight years the appellant appears to have lost interest, having made no attempt to contact his counsel or engage new counsel.

¶20

Key takeaways

The appeal is disposed of, with liberty to the appellant to move an appropriate application within a period of six weeks for reviving the same, if so advised; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor accident claim appeal (FAO-507-2017 O&M, decided 02.12.2025) by the injured claimant seeking enhancement of ₹2,25,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana vide Award dated 02.05.2016 in MACT No. 15 (claim petition dated 07.05.2012 under Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988). After notice of motion dated 06.10.2017 (with the Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963 application), the appeal went before the National Lok Adalat on five dates and the Daily Lok Adalat on four dates; the appellant was un-represented on every occasion, fresh notice returned unserved (address incomplete), and on 05.09.2025 Daily Lok Adalat Bench No. 2 returned the appeal to the High Court as no compromise was possible. On 09.09.2025 the appellant was again un-represented, and despite counsel being informed by e-mail (office report dated 02.12.2025), he remained absent. Holding that further notice would be futile and that the appellant appeared to have lost interest in the appeal pending over eight years, Nidhi Gupta, J. disposed of the appeal with liberty to move an appropriate application within six weeks for its revival, if so advised; pending applications were disposed of.

¶1

FAO-507-2017 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE H I GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

251 FA O -507-2017 (O&M) Dat e of Decision: 02.12.2025

¶5

Krishan D e v .… Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Rajan Computers and others .... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶9

Present: - None.

¶10

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶11

By way of filing the prese n t appeal, the appellant-injured claimant s eeks enhancement of compe n sation amount of ₹2,25,000/awarded t o him vide impugned Award d a ted 02.05.2016, passed by the learned M o tor Accident Claims Tribunal, L udhiana 02.05.2016, in a claim petition bearing MACT No. 15 dated 07. 0 5.2012 filed under Section 166 of the Mot o r Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶12

The matter pertains to the ye a r 2017 and notice of motion in the main a p peal as well as in the applicat i on filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was issued by the P r edecessor Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.10.2017. Perusal of t h e order-sheet(s) reveal(s) that thereafter, the matter was listed before t h e National Lok Adalat on 05 dates i.e. 11.09.2021, 11.12.2021, 12.03.2 0 22, 14.05.2022 and 13.08.2022 and on each and every date of hea r ing, the appellant had gone un-represe n ted; and vide order dated 13. 0 8.2022 passed by the National Lok Adal a t, at the request of learned c ounsel for respondent No. 3- Insurance C ompany, the matter was refer r ed to Daily Lok Adalat. Again

¶13

RISHU KATARIA 2025.12.03 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶14

FAO-507-2017 (O&M)

¶15

-2-

¶16

on 04 dat e s of hearing before the Dail y Lok Adalat i.e. 16.09.2022, 12.10.202 2 , 22.08.2025 and 05.09.2025 , the appellant had gone unrepresente d . As such, on 05.09.2025, foll o wing order was passed by the Daily Lok A dalat, Bench No. 2 of this Co u rt:-

¶17

“As nobody was app e aring for the appellant, fresh notice was ordered to the a p pellant. As per report of the Registry, notice has been re c eived back unserved with the report that address is inc o mplete. No other address is available on the file of this ca s e.

¶18

In view of the sam e , there is no possibility o f compromise in this appeal in Lok Adalat. The same is returned to the Hon’ble High Court for adjudication.”

¶19

On the last date of hearing al s o i.e. 09.09.2025, the appellant had gone u n-represented before the co-or d inate Bench, and Registry was directed to inform learned counsel for the a ppellant about the date fixed. 4. Pursuant thereto, office rep o rt dated 02.12.2025 has been received t h at learned counsel for the ap p ellant has been duly informed about the date fixed through e-mail, bu t despite that today again, the appellant h as gone un-represented.

¶20

In the aforesaid premise, is s uance of fresh notice to the appellant w ould be a futile exercise. It a ppears that due to sheer long pendency o f the present appeal before this Court for a period of more than 08 years, the appellant has lost interest in pursuing the same, as no attempt ha s been made by him to contact h is counsel or to engage a new counsel.

¶21

RISHU KATARIA 2025.12.03 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶22

FAO-507-2017 (O&M) -3-

¶23

Be that as it may, in view of t h e foregoing circumstances, the instant ap p eal is disposed of, with libert y to the appellant, to move an appropriat e application within a period of 06 weeks from today for reviving t h e same, if so, advised.

¶24

Pending application(s), if any , shall stands disposed of.

¶25

02.12.2025 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE

¶26

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶27

RISHU KATARIA 2025.12.03 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Krishan Dev v. M/S Rajan Computers and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan Dev v. M/S Rajan Computers and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suman and Another Vs Meenakshi and Others

Baldev Singh Vs Satnam

Shami Kumar Vs Ajoy Kumar Sinha, IAS and Others

Nagar Singh Khattra and Others Vs Priyank Bharti

Nirmal Singh and Anr. Vs Ranjit Singh and Ors.

Sdo Op Sub Division Uklana Dhbvn Hisar Vs Joginder