Smt. Meena Kumari Vs Mohd. Asif

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 09.09.2014, passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/1^st Additional District Judge Udham Singh Nagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 362 of 2012, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,62,000/-, as compensation against the respondent no.3. The present appeal has been filed to enhance the amount of compensation up to Rs. 10,00,000/-.

¶11

2

¶12

The matter was listed before us. The parties have settled their dispute and have filed a compromise before us which runs as under: -

¶13

Daily Lok Adalat

¶14

Case No. 574/2014 Nature of Case MACT

¶15

Appellant(s) Smt. Meena Kumari & Others

¶16

Respondent (s) Mohd. Asif and Others

¶17

Others Respondent 3, Manager HDFC Ergo Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.

¶18

Parties Arrived on Compromise as follows-

¶19

That above mentioned A.O. No. 574/2014 Smt. Meena Kumari & others Vs Mohd. Asif and others, have been settlement between Appellant / Claimants and Respondent No. 3, Manager HDFC Ergo Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. on the following terms and conditions which are binding on both the parties.

¶20

Both the parties claimants / appellant and respondent no. 3, Manager HDFC Ergo Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd, settled the abovementioned case to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs in lump sum and both the parties are agreed for enhanced amount.

¶21

That the respondent no. 3 HDFC Ergo Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. agreed to pay total Rs. 2 lakh in lump sum as enhanced amount in total as full & final settlement.

¶22

That the parties agreed to full and final settlement at the enhanced amount of Rs. 2 lakhs in lump sum to be paid by Insurance company to the appellant / claimants.

¶23

The enhanced amount shall be paid by the Insurance Company to the claimants within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶24

The claimants their legal heirs hereby fully and forever discharge and indentify the Insurance Company from any and all claims & liabilities in connection with the claims settled herein.

¶25

Signature Signature

¶26

Appellant(s) Respondent(s) No.3 Identified by: Identified by Counsel for Appellant(s) Counsel for Respondent(s) Adv. Girish Chandra Lakhchaura Adv. Pramod Bailwal U.A. 4884/2004, G 220 U.K. 3825/04 Date 03/09/2025 Bar No. P-64”

¶27

3

¶28

The said compromise was read over and explained to the parties. Both have verified the contents of the affidavit and they stated that the contents of the compromise are correct. They have further stated that the compromise has not been written in any coercion or by any undue influence.

¶29

In view of the above, the Appeal from Order is liable to be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶30

The Appeal from Order is disposed of accordingly in terms of the compromise. The compromise be made part of this award.

¶31

(Mahesh Chandra Pant, Adv./ Member) (J.C.S.Rawat, J. (Retd.) 03.09.2025 03.09.2025

¶32

Nahid

Smt. Meena Kumari v. Mohd. Asif

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Meena Kumari v. Mohd. Asif

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Preet Kaur Vs State of Uttarakhand

Girish Chand Vs Abhishek Basera

Jogender Singh Vs Aslam Hafi Alias Aslam Hussain

Chandra Prakash Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand

H.D.F.C Egro General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Arvind Kumar

Devendra Laal Alias Devendra Dugtal Vs State of Uttarakhand