Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2016 DAILYLAW 3702 (PNJ)

SHEELA DEVI AND ORS. v. ABDUL RAHMAN AND ORS.

FAO/3107/2016 · 2026-02-24

Pankaj Jain

body2016

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[228] Sheela Dev Abdul Rahm Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] compensati [2] deceased w driven in a deceased r awarded co [3] the amount Supreme C versus Pr (SC),‘Mag IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT CHANDIGA FAO-3107 Date of De la Devi and others versus l Rahman and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Mr. Kulwant Singh Dhanora, for the appellants. Ms. Tanvi Aggarwal, Advocat Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advo for respondent No.4-Insurance **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) The claimants are in appe ensation on account of death of Sat Pa The pleaded case of the claim ased was going on his motorcycle wh n in a rash and negligent manner ased received fatal injuries and died ded compensation of ₹23,00,000/- on a From the perusal of the record mounts are not strictly in terms of r eme Court in the cases of ‘National Pranay Sethi and Others’, Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd T OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 3107-2016(O&M) of Decision : 24.02.2026 …Appellants ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN nora, Advocate vocate for Advocate urance Company. appeal, seeking enhancement of Sat Pal. claimants is that on 28.02.2014, the cle when the offending tralla being nner ran over his motorcycle. The died on the spot. The Tribunal on account of death of Sat Pal. record, it is evident that even though s of ratio of law laid down by the ional Insurance Company Limited ers’, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009 o. Ltd. versus Nanu Ram alias nt of the being The bunal ough y the ited 1009 RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.26 18:56 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-3107-2016(O&M) -2- Chuhru Ram’, (2018) 18 SCC 130 and ‘Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another’, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, however, the analysis would show that the exercise to jumble the amounts would be futile as the same shall not majorly effect the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. [4] In view thereof, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well reasoned findings recorded by the Tribunal. Finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is ordered to be dismissed. [5] All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 24.02.2026 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.26 18:56 I agree to specified portions of this document