FAO-7212-2011 (O&M) 115 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Kiranjit Kaur and Ors. Sanjeev Kumar and Ors. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Present: HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. 1. Th appellants against the dismissal of the claim peti accident by Motor Accident to as the 'Tribunal') vide award 2. The relevant facts in brief are that on 25.10.2006, Jagdish Singh was going to his house by driving motor cycle 4848. At about 11:30 P.M. Taran to Goindwal Sahib Road, he was hit by PB-92F-0003, resultantly he fell down and injuries suffered by him. The deceased was 45 years of age as Constable in (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-7212 Date of decision: Kiranjit Kaur and Ors. versus Sanjeev Kumar and Ors. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Proxy for Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate for respondent No.3. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. (ORAL) The present appeal has been against the dismissal of the claim peti accident by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar to as the 'Tribunal') vide award dated 04.03.2011. The relevant facts in brief are that on 25.10.2006, Jagdish Singh was going to his house by driving motor cycle bearing 4848. At about 11:30 P.M., when he reached Taran to Goindwal Sahib Road, he was hit by a resultantly he fell down and died injuries suffered by him. The deceased was 45 years of age as Constable in Punjab Police, drawing salary of Rs.16,000/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 7212-2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 11th February 2026 .....…Appellants .......Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Proxy for Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, e present appeal has been preferred by the claimants- against the dismissal of the claim petition in a motor vehicle Tribunal, Amritsar (hereinafter referred 04.03.2011. The relevant facts in brief are that on 25.10.2006, Jagdish Singh bearing no. PB-02-AC (Temp) village Shekh Chak, on Tarn a car, bearing registration No. died at the spot on account of the injuries suffered by him. The deceased was 45 years of age; he was working Punjab Police, drawing salary of Rs.16,000/- per month and AVTAR SINGH 2026.02.19 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document order/judgment FAO-7212-2011 (O&M) was survived by the Daljit Singh son of Gurnam Singh, under Sections 304 Tarn Taran, against Sanjeev Kumar, 3. The driver, owner and Insurance C the claim petition by passing the impugned order 4. Aggrieved ag Kaur (widow), Harleen Kaur, Vijay Pal Singh (minor daughter and son respectively) and Gurmeet Kaur (mother of the deceased appeal, which has been contested by the Insurance Company. 5. Th the following reasons: (a) PW-4- name (b) The m that there was no damage to the car in the allege (c) Earlier claim petition filed by the claimant was dismissed in default by order dated 22.07.2007 ( Kirpal Singh was not a witness and only the name of Gurpr Singh son of Chyanan Singh was narrated as a witness. Gurpr Singh had died (O&M) 2 was survived by the claimants-appellants. On the basis of the statement of Daljit Singh son of Gurnam Singh, an FIR bearing No. 163 dated 26.10.2006, under Sections 304-A, 279, 427 of IPC was regis Tarn Taran, against Sanjeev Kumar, respondent- The driver, owner and Insurance C the claim petition. Issues were framed. Tribunal dismissed the claim petition the impugned order dated 04.03.2011 Aggrieved against the said order Kaur (widow), Harleen Kaur, Vijay Pal Singh (minor daughter and son respectively) and Gurmeet Kaur (mother of the deceased which has been contested by the Insurance Company. he Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition the following reasons:- -Kirpal Singh alleged eye-witness is a made up witness as his name is not there in the list of witnesses in motor vehicle test report of the Maruti Car ( that there was no damage to the car in the allege Earlier claim petition filed by the claimant was dismissed in default by order dated 22.07.2007 (Ex. R6). In the Kirpal Singh was not a witness and only the name of Gurpr Singh son of Chyanan Singh was narrated as a witness. Gurpr Singh had died, which is clear from the death certificat . On the basis of the statement of FIR bearing No. 163 dated 26.10.2006, A, 279, 427 of IPC was registered in Police Station Sadar -driver of the Maruti Car. The driver, owner and Insurance Company of the Car contested Tribunal dismissed the claim petition dated 04.03.2011. the said order claimants-appellants, Kiranjit Kaur (widow), Harleen Kaur, Vijay Pal Singh (minor daughter and son, respectively) and Gurmeet Kaur (mother of the deceased) filed the present which has been contested by the Insurance Company. the claim petition while recording witness is a made up witness as his in the list of witnesses in the criminal case. ehicle test report of the Maruti Car (Ex. R1) indicates that there was no damage to the car in the alleged accident. Earlier claim petition filed by the claimant was dismissed in default R6). In the previous claim petition, Kirpal Singh was not a witness and only the name of Gurprahlad Singh son of Chyanan Singh was narrated as a witness. Gurprahlad which is clear from the death certificate on record, AVTAR SINGH 2026.02.19 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document order/judgment FAO-7212-2011 (O&M) as such it appears th Singh as a false witness. (d) Sanjeev Kumar acquitted 6. Learned counsel for the from the testimo independent witness; Tribunal, as nothing in the cross his credibility. Referring to the statement of the said witness was submitted that the witness has given the description of the accident and also confirmed the presence of the witness Gurpr witness has also clarified that on 26.11.2006 on that day, Gurp the offending Car bearing registration No. PB him and from Gurprahlad Singh the Police two days after the accident, to the Police. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon in Anita Sharma and Ors versus Anr. 2021(1) SCC 171 7. Per contra Company reiterated the the testimony of Kirpal Singh PW4 has been rightly rejected by while dismissing the claim petition. (O&M) 3 as such it appears that the claimants have now roped Singh as a false witness. Sanjeev Kumar-Respondent no.1 driver of the Car has been acquitted of the charges under Section 304 earned counsel for the claimants from the testimony of PW4 Kirpal Singh, it has been proved th independent witness; his statement should have been as nothing in the cross-examination has been his credibility. Referring to the statement of the said witness was submitted that the witness has given the description of the accident and also confirmed the presence of the witness Gurpr also clarified that on 26.11.2006, he was called by the Police Gurprahlad Singh was also present there the offending Car bearing registration No. PB- him and from Gurprahlad Singh,. He had also testified that he was called by the Police two days after the accident, when he disclosed to the Police. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon Anita Sharma and Ors versus The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and (1) SCC 171. Per contra, learned counsel representing the Insurance mpany reiterated the reasons recorded by the Tribunal and submitted that the testimony of Kirpal Singh PW4 has been rightly rejected by while dismissing the claim petition. at the claimants have now roped in Kirpal no.1 driver of the Car has been of the charges under Section 304-A IPC. claimants-appellants submitted that it has been proved that he is an his statement should have been relied upon by the examination has been suggested to impeach his credibility. Referring to the statement of the said witness (Ex. PW4/A) it was submitted that the witness has given the description of the accident and also confirmed the presence of the witness Gurprahlad Singh at the spot. The he was called by the Police and hlad Singh was also present there. Police got identified -02F-0003 and its driver from also testified that he was called by he disclosed about the accident to the Police. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon`ble Apex Court e New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and , learned counsel representing the Insurance recorded by the Tribunal and submitted that the testimony of Kirpal Singh PW4 has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal AVTAR SINGH 2026.02.19 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document order/judgment FAO-7212-2011 (O&M) 8. I have paper book. Negligence-Eye witness account: 9. As per the record statement of Daljit Singh not stated that he ha received the information about the accident through a telephonic call, which he reached the spot and got the FIR registere taken by the Tribunal that the witnesses in the criminal case ha of the accused-driver of the Maruti Car. The said ground taken by the is not justified. 10. In the criminal trial dated 09.03.2010 PW1-Daljit Singh, the informant and Perusal of the FIR he is an eye-witness of the accident only on the basis of a telephonic information received by him. 11. As such, in case PW1 that he had not seen the accused causing the accident, proceedings conducted by the Tribunal. P 173 Cr.P.C. suggests informed by Gurpr (O&M) 4 I have considered the aforesaid Eye witness account:- s per the record, the FIR was registered on the basis of statement of Daljit Singh, who is a relative of the deceased. In the FIR, he has not stated that he had witnessed the accident, he has only stated that he received the information about the accident through a telephonic call, he reached the spot and got the FIR registere Tribunal to disbelieve the testimony of Kirpal Singh that the witnesses in the criminal case had turned hostile driver of the Maruti Car. The said ground taken by the In the criminal trial, while acquitting dated 09.03.2010, the Criminal Court has only Daljit Singh, the informant and PW2 Perusal of the FIR indicates that PW1-Daljit Singh witness of the accident; he has given the information to the Police only on the basis of a telephonic information received by him. As such, in case PW1-Daljit Singh has stated that he had not seen the accused causing the accident, proceedings conducted by the Tribunal. Perusal of the report under Section suggests that the number of the Maruti Car informed by Gurprahlad Singh. On the basis of the said information aforesaid submissions and perused the the FIR was registered on the basis of who is a relative of the deceased. In the FIR, he has witnessed the accident, he has only stated that he received the information about the accident through a telephonic call, upon he reached the spot and got the FIR registered. One of the grounds to disbelieve the testimony of Kirpal Singh (PW-4) is turned hostile, leading to acquittal driver of the Maruti Car. The said ground taken by the Tribunal acquitting the accused, vide judgment only considered the statement of PW2-Sarabjit Singh, eye-witness. Daljit Singh-informant did not say that he has given the information to the Police only on the basis of a telephonic information received by him. Daljit Singh has stated in the criminal trial that he had not seen the accused causing the accident, it has no bearing on the erusal of the report under Section of the Maruti Car-offending vehicle was hlad Singh. On the basis of the said information, the the FIR was registered on the basis of who is a relative of the deceased. In the FIR, he has witnessed the accident, he has only stated that he upon is leading to acquittal vide judgment of informant did not say that he has given the information to the Police trial has no bearing on the erusal of the report under Section offending vehicle was the AVTAR SINGH 2026.02.19 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document order/judgment FAO-7212-2011 (O&M) Investigating Officer had involved Sanjeev Kumar driver of the offending vehicle. 12. Similarly the testimony of Sarabjit Singh trial also has no bearing in the present case. He has only stated that Maruti Car is owned by his wife Jasbir Kaur and his driver him that any accident Both the said persons are n circumstances, their testimony, be taken as an adverse substance/evidence Kirpal Singh. 13. The first informant Daljit Singh has recorded received a telephonic call upon which he came to know about the accident. PW-4 Kirpal Singh has stated that he witnesse motorcyclists going through disclosed his name as Gurpr informed him the name of the injured as Jagdish Singh left the spot as Gurprahlad body of the deceased. There is no dispute that the deceased died due to injuries received in a road accident. Postmortem report the information furnished by the Police 14. The Tribunal h died, as per his death cer statement was recorded in (O&M) 5 Investigating Officer had involved Sanjeev Kumar the offending vehicle. imilarly the testimony of Sarabjit Singh also has no bearing in the present case. He has only stated that Maruti Car is owned by his wife Jasbir Kaur and his driver accident took place on the night intervening 25 Both the said persons are not eye-witnesses of the accident. In said if they have not been examined in the present case or that on , respondent No.1 has been acquitted in the trial be taken as an adverse substance/evidence to disbelieve The first informant Daljit Singh has recorded received a telephonic call upon which he came to know about the accident. 4 Kirpal Singh has stated that he witnesse lists going through who also witnessed the accident, disclosed his name as Gurprahlad Singh resident of Village the name of the injured as Jagdish Singh left the spot as Gurprahlad Singh assured him that he will take care of the dead body of the deceased. There is no dispute that the deceased died due to injuries received in a road accident. Postmortem report the information furnished by the Police, it was a road side accident. The Tribunal has failed to consider that Gurp as per his death certificate which is on record but prior to that his statement was recorded in a claim petition, which was previously filed on Investigating Officer had involved Sanjeev Kumar-respondent No.1, as a imilarly the testimony of Sarabjit Singh (PW2) in the criminal also has no bearing in the present case. He has only stated that Maruti Car is owned by his wife Jasbir Kaur and his driver Sanjeev Kumar has not told intervening 25-26 October 2006. witnesses of the accident. In said if they have not been examined in the present case or that on respondent No.1 has been acquitted in the trial, same cannot disbelieve the testimony of PW4- The first informant Daljit Singh has recorded in the FIR that he received a telephonic call upon which he came to know about the accident. 4 Kirpal Singh has stated that he witnessed the accident, the other who also witnessed the accident, one of them hlad Singh resident of Village Padhe and also the name of the injured as Jagdish Singh. As per his version, he assured him that he will take care of the dead body of the deceased. There is no dispute that the deceased died due to injuries received in a road accident. Postmortem report also has a reference that as per a road side accident. as failed to consider that Gurprahlad Singh has ficate which is on record but prior to that his which was previously filed on as a (PW2) in the criminal also has no bearing in the present case. He has only stated that Maruti Car anjeev Kumar has not told 26 October 2006. witnesses of the accident. In said if they have not been examined in the present case or that on cannot in the FIR that he received a telephonic call upon which he came to know about the accident. the accident, the other one of them lso he assured him that he will take care of the dead body of the deceased. There is no dispute that the deceased died due to injuries has a reference that as per hlad Singh has ficate which is on record but prior to that his which was previously filed on AVTAR SINGH 2026.02.19 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document order/judgment FAO-7212-2011 (O&M) behalf of the claimants. His statement was recorded by way of an affidavit and he also appeared as AW2 and was also examined on behalf of the respondents. His affidavit and testimony is proved as 15. The application filed by the claimant for Investigating Officer way of additional evidence was dismissed by the Tribunal by Order dated 08.02.2011. As such said evidence to clarify the said Investigating Officer. 16. Sanjeev Kumar the driver and owner of the Maruti Car, respectively have not stepped into the witness-box to cont adverse inference considered by the Tribunal. 17. From the testimony of PW the other aforesaid attending conclude that Jagdish Singh died in a motor vehicle accident which on 25.10.2006 on accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruti Car. Respondent No.1 testimony of eye Gurprahalad Singh record. The reasons recorded by the Tribunal to discard the said evidence are not justified. (O&M) 6 laimants. His statement was recorded by way of an affidavit and he also appeared as AW2 and was also examined on behalf of the respondents. His affidavit and testimony is proved as Ex. R7. The application filed by the claimant for Investigating Officer, Satpal Singh, ASI and Daljit Singh author of the FIR by way of additional evidence was dismissed by the Tribunal by Order dated s such the appellants-claimants were incapacitated to lead the said evidence to clarify and to further elaborate the investigation conducted by the said Investigating Officer. Sanjeev Kumar-respondent No.1 and Jasbir Kaur the driver and owner of the Maruti Car, respectively have not stepped into the box to controvert the testimony of eye- adverse inference has to be drawn against them considered by the Tribunal. From the testimony of PW4-Kirpal Singh, eye the other aforesaid attending circumstances, conclude that Jagdish Singh died in a motor vehicle accident which on 25.10.2006 on a road leading from Tarn Taran to Goindwal Sahab. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruti Car. Respondent No.1 was the driver of the Car is also proved by the testimony of eye-witness PW4-Kirpal Singh and by the Gurprahalad Singh, recorded in an earlier claim petition record. The reasons recorded by the Tribunal to discard the said evidence are laimants. His statement was recorded by way of an affidavit and he also appeared as AW2 and was also examined on behalf of the respondents. R7. The application filed by the claimant for examining the Singh, ASI and Daljit Singh author of the FIR by way of additional evidence was dismissed by the Tribunal by Order dated claimants were incapacitated to lead the further elaborate the investigation conducted by respondent No.1 and Jasbir Kaur-respondent No.2, the driver and owner of the Maruti Car, respectively have not stepped into the -witness Kirpal Singh. As such, to be drawn against them, but this aspect was not Kirpal Singh, eye-witness and from , there is ample evidence to conclude that Jagdish Singh died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred road leading from Tarn Taran to Goindwal Sahab. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the the driver of the Car is also proved by the Kirpal Singh and by the testimony of recorded in an earlier claim petition, which is already on record. The reasons recorded by the Tribunal to discard the said evidence are laimants. His statement was recorded by way of an affidavit and he also appeared as AW2 and was also examined on behalf of the respondents. the Singh, ASI and Daljit Singh author of the FIR by way of additional evidence was dismissed by the Tribunal by Order dated claimants were incapacitated to lead the further elaborate the investigation conducted by No.2, the driver and owner of the Maruti Car, respectively have not stepped into the not witness and from to road leading from Tarn Taran to Goindwal Sahab. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the the driver of the Car is also proved by the testimony of on record. The reasons recorded by the Tribunal to discard the said evidence are AVTAR SINGH 2026.02.19 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document order/judgment FAO-7212-2011 (O&M) 18. I have also considered the submissions raised on behalf of the Insurance Company that the earlier claim petition f claimants-appellants present claim petition was not maintainable. It is not disputed that the earlier claim petition was not dismisse minor children and mother of the deceased. There is nothing on record to suggest that the claimants have taken any benefit by way of filing the fresh claim petition and also keeping in view the fact that Motor is a beneficial legislation to provide support and compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased accidents, it would not merely on the ground of technicalities. By invoking the extra jurisdiction, this Court is competent to accept the view the facts on record. 19. Consequently (driver of the Car) (owner of the Car having contractual liability to compensate the legal dependents of the deceased. Quantum:- 20. As per the of Jagdish Singh is proved as 45 years. As per drawing salary of Rs.16,000/ minor children and (O&M) 7 I have also considered the submissions raised on behalf of the mpany that the earlier claim petition f appellants was dismissed in default on 28.02.2008, as such the present claim petition was not maintainable. It is not disputed that the earlier claim petition was not dismissed on merits. The claimants are the widow, minor children and mother of the deceased. There is nothing on record to suggest that the claimants have taken any benefit by way of filing the fresh claim petition and also keeping in view the fact that Motor is a beneficial legislation to provide support and compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased or an injured person who are would not be in the favour of equity to discard the claim petition erely on the ground of technicalities. By invoking the extra this Court is competent to accept the view the facts on record. Consequently, it is held that Sanjeev Kumar Car) is having tortuous liability, Jasbir Kaur owner of the Car) is having vicarious liability and Insurance C having contractual liability to compensate the legal dependents of the deceased. As per the uncontroverted testimony of AW of Jagdish Singh is proved as 45 years. As per drawing salary of Rs.16,000/- per month and has left behind a widow, two minor children and a mother, who are the claimants I have also considered the submissions raised on behalf of the mpany that the earlier claim petition filed on behalf of the default on 28.02.2008, as such the present claim petition was not maintainable. It is not disputed that the earlier d on merits. The claimants are the widow, two minor children and mother of the deceased. There is nothing on record to suggest that the claimants have taken any benefit by way of filing the fresh claim petition and also keeping in view the fact that Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation to provide support and compensation to the legal injured person who are victimized due to road side in the favour of equity to discard the claim petition erely on the ground of technicalities. By invoking the extra-ordinary this Court is competent to accept the present appeal, keeping in it is held that Sanjeev Kumar-respondent No.1 liability, Jasbir Kaur-respondent No.2, is having vicarious liability and Insurance Company is having contractual liability to compensate the legal dependents of the deceased. uncontroverted testimony of AW3-Kiranjit Kaur, age of Jagdish Singh is proved as 45 years. As per her testimony, deceased was per month and has left behind a widow, two mother, who are the claimants-appellants. I have also considered the submissions raised on behalf of the iled on behalf of the default on 28.02.2008, as such the present claim petition was not maintainable. It is not disputed that the earlier two minor children and mother of the deceased. There is nothing on record to suggest that the claimants have taken any benefit by way of filing the fresh Vehicle Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation to provide support and compensation to the legal due to road side in the favour of equity to discard the claim petition ordinary keeping in respondent No.1 respondent No.2, mpany is having contractual liability to compensate the legal dependents of the deceased. age was per month and has left behind a widow, two AVTAR SINGH 2026.02.19 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document order/judgment FAO-7212-2011 (O&M) 21. Accordingly, the decision in National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi 16 SCC 680, the compensation is Sr. No. Heads 1. Monthly 2. Future Prospects 3. Deduction 1/ 4. Annual Income 5. Multiplier of ' 6. Funeral expenses 7. Loss of estate 8. Loss of consortium parental 9. Total Compensation 22. The awarded from the date of filing amount. However, interest for the 23. In view of the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parminder Singh vs. Honey Goyal & Ors., 2025 1NSC 361, shall be transferred by respondent No. Accounts of the claimant today. The particulars of the bank account(s) along documents in support thereof shall be to respondent No. today and needful shall be done by respondent No. after verification th (O&M) 8 Accordingly, in view of the circumstances and in view of the ratio of National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi he compensation is reworked as under: Heads Compensation Awarded Monthly income Rs.16,000/ Future Prospects 30% (Rs.20,800/ Deduction 1/4th Rs.15,600/ Annual Income Rs.1,87,200/ Multiplier of '14’ Rs.1,87,200/ Funeral expenses Rs.18, Loss of estate Rs.18, Loss of consortium (spousal, parental and filial) [Rs.48, Total Compensation Rs.28, The awarded amount shall attract interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount. However, the claimant-appellants shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay in filing the main appeal. In view of the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parminder Singh vs. Honey Goyal & Ors., 2025 1NSC 361, shall be transferred by respondent No.3-Insurance Company in the Bank Accounts of the claimant-appellants within a period of 06 weeks from today. The particulars of the bank account(s) along documents in support thereof shall be furnished by the claimant to respondent No.3-Insurance Company within a period of two weeks from needful shall be done by respondent No. verification thereof within a period of four weeks thereafter along n view of the circumstances and in view of the ratio of National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) as under:- Compensation Awarded 16,000/- 30% (Rs.20,800/-) 15,600/- 1,87,200/- 1,87,200/- X 14 = Rs.26,20,800/- Rs.18,000/- Rs.18,000/- [Rs.48,000/- x 4] = Rs.1,92,000/- 28,48,800/- shall attract interest @ 7.5% per annum of the claim petition till the realization of the entire appellants shall not be entitled to any period of delay in filing the main appeal. In view of the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parminder Singh vs. Honey Goyal & Ors., 2025 1NSC 361, the amount Insurance Company in the Bank appellants within a period of 06 weeks from today. The particulars of the bank account(s) along with the requisite furnished by the claimant-appellants within a period of two weeks from needful shall be done by respondent No.3-Insurance Company ereof within a period of four weeks thereafter along n view of the circumstances and in view of the ratio of & Ors., (2017) In view of the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in amount Insurance Company in the Bank appellants within a period of 06 weeks from with the requisite appellants within a period of two weeks from Insurance Company ereof within a period of four weeks thereafter along AVTAR SINGH 2026.02.19 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document order/judgment FAO-7212-2011 (O&M) with up-to-date interest. The compliance shall be reported by the Bank to the Tribunal concerned. 24. In partly allowed and the award passed by the accordingly. 25. Pending miscellaneous application of. 11.02.2026 Avtar Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable (O&M) 9 date interest. The compliance shall be reported by the Bank to the Tribunal concerned. view of the above discussion, the present appeal is partly allowed and the award passed by the Pending miscellaneous application [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN] Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : date interest. The compliance shall be reported by the Bank to view of the above discussion, the present appeal is partly allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN] JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No date interest. The compliance shall be reported by the Bank to view of the above discussion, the present appeal is shall stand disposed AVTAR SINGH 2026.02.19 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document order/judgment