IN THE HI Shri Ram Gene Jaspreet Kaur CORAM: Argued by:- NIDHI GUPTA, CM-1896-CII- Section 151 CP by the learn evidence. same is allowe record. MAIN CASE: E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA Date of pro General Insurance Company Limited Vs. aur and others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advoca for respondents No.1 to 3. *** PTA, J. -2025 IN FAO-1738-2017: This is an application unde 1 CPC for placing on record judgme arned JMIC, Samrala (Annexure After going through the con lowed subject to all just exceptions D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1738-2017 (O&M) pronouncement: 14.02.2025 ited ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA ate vocate o 3. nder Order 41 Rule 27 read with gment dated 05.09.2023 passed ure A1) by way of additional e contents of the application, the ons and Annexure A1 is taken on 18 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document seeking modif Motor Acciden learned Tribun 01.02.2016 fi Section 166 of Act”), has b compensation from the date 2. the basis of th Lakhwinder Si vehicular acci negligent driv (hereinafter r respondent No and owner res severally liabl widow, minor 3. seeking enha Tribunal. Both cross-objectio Present appeal has been fi odification of the Award dated 16.1 ident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh ibunal”) whereby the claim petition 6 filed by the claimants/responde of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( s been allowed; and the claim tion of Rs.20,00,520/- along with ate of filing the petition till realisati Briefly stated the facts are of the evidence adduced before it, r Singh had died due to the injuri accident that took place on 09.0 driving of the truck bearing r er referred to as “the offending t No.4. The appellant, along with respectively of the offending vehic liable to pay the above compensat inor daughter, and father of the dece Cross objections have b nhancement of the compensatio oth, the present appeal filed by th ctions filed by the claimants, are en filed by the Insurance Company 16.11.2016 passed by the learned rh (hereinafter referred to as “the ition bearing MACT Case No.52 of ondents No.1 to 3 herein,under 88 (hereinafter referred to as “the claimants have been awarded ith interest @ 7.5% per annum isation. s are that the learned Tribunal on it, concluded that the deceased- njuries suffered by himin a motor 09.01.2016 due to the rash and g registration No.PB-11BA-4923 ding vehicle”) being driven by ith Respondents No.4 and 5/driver ehicle,were held to be jointly and nsation. The 3 claimants are the deceased-Lakhwinder Singh. e been filed by the claimants sation awarded by the learned y the insurance company and the are being disposed of by this 18 ny ed he of er he ed um on - tor nd 23 by ver nd he nts ed he s SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document common orde convenience, referred to as Company i.e. whereas the c 4. assails the imp of accident, th had no driving that he was rid route; and ha whereupon th bumper of th categorically p thereupon, le deceased. It is appellant has Award which a 5. chance to lead No.1766 date witness and accepted by th order as they arise out of comm ce, the facts are being drawn from o as per their status in FAO-1738 i.e. The Insurance Company is being he cross-objectors are being referred Learned counsel for the impugned Award primarily with th , the deceased was driving his m iving licence, and he even had no as riding. As such, he wanted to avo had tried to by-pass the Naka the accident had occurred when f the truck. It is submitted that th lly pleaded in the written stateme , let alone any contributory It is submitted that the only findin has been held liable are contained ich are utterly non-speaking. It is further submitted that lead complete evidence. The appel ated 07.10.2016 for summoning o nd even deposited the diet mon by the learned Tribunal. Though the ommon Award. For the sake of from, and the parties are being 738-2017 filed by the Insurance eing referred to as ‘the appellant’; erred to as ‘the Claimants’. he appellant-Insurance Company h the contention that on the date is motorcycle without helmet, he no registration of the motorcycle avoid the Police Post/Naka on the aka from the side of the truck, hen the deceased had hit into the at though even these facts were ement, no finding has been given ry negligenceattributed to the indings on the basis of which the ined in Para 11 of the impugned that the appellant was not given a pellant had moved an application ng of the Investigating Officer as money for the same which was the zimni order dated 07.10.2016 18 of ing ce t’; ny ate he cle he ck, he ere en he he ed n a ion as as 16 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document mentions the the same. 6. wrongly held alleged offend the criminal Sections 279, vide judgmen Magistrate, 1 7. the basis of t alleged, eyew learned Tribun fact,she was n proved by the recorded in Pa (Annexure A1) 8. has put forth an eye witnes above testimo discrepant sta contributory n the application of the appellant how It is further submitted t eld liable is also evident from th fending vehicle/respondent No.4 h nal trial in case FIR No.3 dated 79, 304-A, 337 and 427 IPC at Poli ment dated 05.09.2023(Annexur e, 1st Class, Samrala. It is submitted that the abo of the statement made by the m witness to the accident. It is c ibunal has taken her to be an eyewi as not present at the spot. It is c the testimony of the complainan in Paras 14 and 15 of the judgment A1). It is submitted that to th rth a different story before the lea tness to the incident.However, the timony of the complainant.It is t statements made by the complain ry negligence on part of the dece however, no order is passed upon d that the appellant has been the fact that the driver of the .4 herein, has been acquitted in ed 09.01.2016 registered under Police Station Machhiwara Sahib, exure A1), by the ld. Judicial above said FIR was registered on mother-in-law of the deceased is contended that although the yewitness to the accident,in actual is contended that this has been ainant during the criminal trialas ent of acquittal dated 05.09.2023 the contrary, the complainant learned Tribunal claiming to be the said story is falsified by the is argued that from the above lainant,it is clear that there was deceased. However, these facts 18 on en he in er ib, ial on ed he ual en as 23 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document have not bee impugned Awa 9. impugned Aw income of the notification ap month; where Ludhiana and assessed as notification pe prospects has was 35 year prospectsshou deduction of 1 has incorrectl Learned couns been granted exceed Rs.77,0 modified. 10. Award was pa Insurance Com have been file been considered by the learned ward. Learned counsel for the a Award even on the basis of quant f the deceased has been assessed n applicable to Chandigarh and has hereas the deceased as well as the and therefore the income of the de as Rs.7,200/- per month as pe n pertinent to State of Punjab. It is has been applied at the rate of 5 years of age at the time of a should be 40%. It is submitted that of 1/3rd ought to have been made w rectly made a deduction of 1/4th ounsel further contends that a total ted under the conventional heads .77,000/-. It is accordingly prayed t Learned counsel lastlysubm s passed on dated 16.11.2016. Pre Company on 14.03.2017; whereas filed by the claimants only on 13. ned Tribunal while passing the he appellant further assails the uantum. It is submitted that the sed as per the minimum wages has been taken as Rs.8,220/- per the claimants were residents of e deceased ought to have been per relevant minimum wage t is further submitted that future of 50%. However, the deceased of accident. Therefore, future hat as there are three claimants, de whereas the learned Tribunal th towards personal expenses. otal amount of Rs.2,25,000/- has eads; whereas the same cannot ed that the impugned Award be submits that in the present case Present appeal was filed by the eas the cross-objections thereto 13.03.2024 i.e. after delay of 7 18 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document years. Even no condonation o contention ld. Insurance Co. 964131, to su cross-objectio commences fr pleader. 11. respondents N behalf of t compensation statements m the mothe Kumari/PW2/c arguments of inasmuch as t claimants. Mo any police po taken by the in learned Tribun the appellant n no application has been filed by on of this inordinate delay of sev d. counsel relies upon the judgme Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sudesh Juneja & o submit that there is limitation o ctions as provided under Order es from the date of service of noti Per contra, learned co ts No.1 to 3 herein vehemently o the appellant-insurance compa tion has been rightly awarded to th s made by two eyewitnesses to th other-in-law of the dec 2/complainant, and PW3-Ram La s of learned counsel for the a as the criminal trial will have no be Moreover, there is nothing on reco post at the place of occurrence. E he insurance company in the writte ibunal. Thus, a false and concocted ant-insurance company. d by the cross-objectors seeking seven years. In support of his gment of this Court in “National a & Others” Law Finder doc ID # ion of one month for filing the rder 41 Rule 22 CPC which notice on the respondent or his counsel for the claimants- ly opposes the prayer made on mpany and submits that the to the claimants on the basis of o the accident - the same being deceased namely Soma Lal. It is submitted that the e appellant are misconceived o bearing on the civil case of the record indicating that there was ce. Even no such plea has been ritten statement filed before the cted story has been put-forth by 18 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12. for claimants added at the r to have been claimants. 13. are entitled fo at the time of and was earn ought to have not have been the present ap 14. 15. perused the ca 16. of the claiman the offending version has be relied upon ob 5.9.2023, whe trial, and wh doubted. How As regards the quantum o nts candidly and fairly admits that he rate of 40% and not 50%; and th been made keeping in view the Learned counsel however d for enhancement of compensatio e of accident the deceased was w earning Rs.50,000/- per month. Th ave been assessed at least as Rs.20 een taken as Rs.8,200/- per month. appeal be dismissed. No other argument is raise I have heard learned co e case file in great detail. It has been argued on beha imants attributing negligence to th ding vehicle is doubtful as an inc s been given by the claimants. In th n observations given in para 14 an whereby the respondent no.4 has b where presence of complainant However, upon minute perusal of th m of compensation ld. counsel hat future prospects have to be d that a deduction of 1/3rd ought the fact that there are three ver contends that the claimants ation on account of the fact that s working as a truck body maker . Thus, income of the deceased s.20,000/- per month and could nth. It is accordingly prayed that aised on behalf of the parties. counsel for the parties and behalf of the appellant that case o the respondent no.4/driver of inconsistent and contradictory In this regard, the appellant has 4 and 15 of the Judgment dated as been acquitted in the criminal ant at the spot of accident is of the file, I find no merit in the 18 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document said argumen 09.01.2016, statement m Lakhwinder Si complainant is 5.9.2023. The 1.2.2016. A p forth by the cl 09.01.2016 de and daughter reached at Ga No.PB-11BA- driven by resp horn and aft conductor sid Lakhwinder Si tyre of truck ra injuries on he deceased was maker and ear been consiste FIR, in the clai such, presence ment of the appellant. Pursuan FIR No.3 dated 09.01.2016 w made by Soma Kumari, moth r Singh, eyewitness to the accident nt is noticed/recorded in paras 2 a The present claim petition was file A perusal of the said documents e claimants in both, the FIR as also 6 deceased Lakhwinder Singh along ter were going on his motorcycle a t Garhi bridge at about 5:30 pm -4923/the offending vehicle came respondent No.1 in rash and neglig after crossing the motorcycle o side of truck into motorcycle Singh along with his motorcycle ck ran over his head due to which h n head and other parts of body an was stated to be about 29 years o earning ₹40,000/– per month. Th istently put forth by the claimants claim petition, and in their evidenc ence of complainant at the site of a suant to the accident dated 6 was lodgedon the basis of other-in-law of the deceased ent. The statement made by the 2 and 3 of the judgment dated s filed by the cross-objectors on nts shows that the case as put also the claim petition, is that on long with his wife Jaspreet Kaur cle at normal speed. When they pm a truck bearing registration ame from Machiwara side being gligent manner without blowing le of Soma Kumari struck the cle of deceased. Due to this ycle fell down on the road and ich he received multiple grievous y and he died on the spot. The rs old, working as a truck body The above version of events has ants and the complainant in the ence in both the proceedings.As of accident cannot be doubted. 18 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document The argument of the judgme also establishe basis of statem and the offe Kumari. As suc 17. Insurance Com accident; and contributory n it has been ar that such a p Tribunal. I hav minute detail appellant to th of the LCR), it ent of the appellant to the contrar gment of acquittal dated 5.9.2023 lished from the fact that admitted tatement made by Soma Kumari; a offending vehicle was also disclo s such her presence at the place of a It has next been contended Company that the deceased was a and that the learned Tribunal has ry negligence as raised by the appe n argued by learned counsel for th a plea was never raised by the a I have perused the case file as also tail; which reveal that in the wri to the claim petition of the cross-ob , it has been specifically pleaded as “1. That the claim petition is l ground that there is no negligen no 1 and the accident has take negligence of the deceased as:- • Firstly he was overtaking the t the wrong side at a high speed. • Secondly he was not wearing his vehicle. • Thirdly he was driving the moto the same. Page 9 of 18 trary, based on paras 14 and 15 23 (A-1), is misconceived. This is ttedly FIR was registered on the ri; and the identity of the driver isclosed by complainant Soma of accident cannot be doubted. nded on behalf of the appellant- as also negligent in causing the has not dealt with the plea of appellant before. To the contrary or the cross-objectors/claimants e appellant before the learned also the Lower Court Record in written statement filed by the objectors (available at page 35 d as follows:- is liable to be dismissed on the ligence on the part of respondent taken place because of the own the truck of the respondents from d. the driving license while driving motorcycle without registration of 18 the ent wn om ing of SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 18. was veritably evident from t 19. deceased, the helmet, did no registration of avoid the po whereupon he Naka has bee where she has LCR), as under fa • Fourthly, when he saw the polic since he was having the fear of p having helmet and also was not motor cycle), he suddenly took a avoid the police Naka and in or police Naka he himself hit th respondents.” Clearly therefore, the plea ably taken by the appellant before om the impugned Award, the said pl To establish contributory the appellant has stated that the d id not have a proper driving license n of the motorcycle that he was dr police Naka in front and had n he hit into the offending vehicle been admitted bythe complainant has stated in her cross-examination nder:- “The deceased Lakhwinder Singh w no intention of remarrying our d son-in-law expired on 09.01.2016 motorcycle PB- 47-D-5143 being (Devar) namely Roshan Lal. Our far from the motorcycle of my so care of the deceased Lakhwinder police naka near Garhi Bridge and r of police challan (as he was not not having the registration of his k a wrong turn in right side to in order to escape the from the it the bumper of the truck of plea of contributory negligence efore the Tribunal. However, as id plea has not been dealt with. ory negligence on part of the he deceased was driving without ense, and did not even have the s driving. As such, he wanted to ad taken a turn to the right icle. The presence of the police ant/PW2 before the ld. Tribunal ation (available at page 79 of the ngh was my son-in-law. We have ur daughter, Jaspreet Kaur. My 2016, in road accident. I was on eing driven by my brother-in-law ur motorcycle was 25-30 yard y son in law. We started taking inder Singh after the accident & 18 nd ot his to the of SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fro 20. vehicle/respon at page 103 o Garhi Bridge T was driving his several persons gathered at the accident, my brother in law Rosha to our relatives namely Sukhi Cha to other relatives. I do not know brother in law. It is incorrect t witnessed any accident. … … No with regard to handing over th daughter can be produced by m that my son in law was drivin helmet. I cannot say anything as was having driving licence or not on Garhi Wala Pul Tehsil Samrala, from place of accident, there was police post near the place of acc police party were available on th to suggest that because of hav motorcycle, having no driving helmet, my son in law was eager avoid traffic challan. It is incorrect Singh wrongly took a wrong turn police naka&In order to escape bumper of the truck PB-11-BA-49 that negligence was on part of de added) Even RW1/the drive spondent no.4has admitted in his 03 of the LCR), that “It is correct th ge Tehsil Samrala on 9.1.2016. It i g his motorcycle without registration the spot. Immediately after the oshan Lal made telephonic calls i Chand & he further made calls know the mobile number of my ect to suggest that I have not No document or return memo er the helmet by police to my y me. It is incorrect to suggest driving the motorcycle without g as to whether my son in law not. …… The accident took place rala, District Ludhiana. Far away was a policenaka. There is also a f accident & lot of members of n the police naka. It is incorrect f having no registration of the ing licence& having worn no ager to avoid the police naka to rrect to suggest that Lakhwinder turn on the right side to avoid ape from it, he himself hit the 4923. It is incorrect to suggest of deceased himself….”(Emphasis river of the offending his cross-examination (available ct that there was police Naka at . It is correct that the deceased ation, DL, and helmet.” 18 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 21. claimant no.1 deposed that District Ludhia Naka. There is members of Po 22. Naka close to on record to Naka. It is n deceased was the appellant and/or did no doubt, procee nature, howe assertion mad to this effect a learned couns the above fac therefore app 23. of the driver o Soma Kumari Even PW1/Jaspreet Kaur, 1 in her evidence (available at pa hat “The accident took place on Ga dhiana. Far away from place of a re is also a police post near the p of Police party were available on the All of the above evidence e to the place of accident.However, to demonstrate that the deceased is not even established on reco was travelling without helmet. It is ant has derived that the deceased d not have the registration of the m oceedings under the Act before th owever, there has to be some e made by the appellant. Mere bald ect are not sufficient. Nothing has b unsel for the appellant to indubita facts. The assertions of the app appear to be mere presumptions. On the other hand, to prov ver of the offending vehicle the clai mari who appeared PW2. She cl aur, widow of the deceased/ t page 61 to 71 of the LCR), has n Garhiwala Pul, Tehsil Samrala, of accident, there was a police he place of accident and lot of n the Police Naka.” ce shows that there was a police ver, there is nothing whatsoever ased wanted to avoid the police ecord beyond doubt that the It is not clear as to on what basis ed did not have a driving license e motorcycle he was driving.No re the Tribunal are summary in e evidence in support of the ald statements of the appellant has been shown to this Court by bitably and irrevocably establish appellant to this effect would prove the negligence on the part claimants examined eyewitness e clearly stated in her whole 18 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document evidence that negligence dri examination a taken the wro her testimony vehicle is not herself which FIR the numbe manner of th further exami accompanying the responden appraisal of of the deceas Hon’ble Supre Civil Appeal N held that:- 24. the appellant offending veh 5.9.2003 (Ann that the accident in question to driving of the driver of truck no. on a specific question was asked wrong turn to avoid the naka whic ony there is not in iota of fact tha not negligent. Further the FIR w ich removes all doubt regarding her mber of the offending vehicle, the f the accident has been specifical amined Jaspreet Kaur who was a ying the deceased. Her testimony ndent. As such, it is my considered of the record and evidence, no con ceased is indicated. I further draw upreme Court in “Kusum Lata & O al No.2269 of 2011 decided on 02.0 “In a case relating to motor acc are not required to prove the case in a criminal trial.” It has next been argued on lant cannot be held liable as there vehicle has been acquitted in crimin (Annexure A1). However, even took place due to rash and no. PB11BA4923. In her cross- ed whether the deceased had which she specifically denied. In that the driver of the offending R was lodged by Soma Kumari g her presence at the spot. In the the name of the driver and the fically mentioned.The claimants as also eyewitness as she was ny also could not be shaken by ered view that from a detailed contributory negligence on part raw support from judgment of & Others Vs. Satbir & Others” 02.03.2011, wherein it has been r accident claims, the claimants case as it is required to be done d on behalf of the appellant that erespondent no.4/driver of the riminal trial vide judgment dated en the said argument of the 18 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document appellant is li “Pepsu Road Finder Doc ID 25. Hon’ble Supre Mohapatra a 02.09.2013, w fin 26. appellant, alth refer to any co the deceased. presumptions. 27. judgment of is liable to be rejected in view o oad Transport Corporation, Patia c ID # 13981, wherein it has been he “B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Criminal case - Acquittal of th criminal proceedings - The judgm not binding on the Tribunal - The to its independent findings and co Reference may also be upreme Court in “Minu Rout and an a and others” Civil Appeal No. wherein it has been held as unde “B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, negligence - Head on collision b Police submitting charge sheet of drivers - Claim petition before Trib finding of contributory negligence Tribunal to look into evidence prod As already noticed above, although argued very persuasively y concrete evidence to establish th sed.Only tenuous argument is sough ions. In the facts and circum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “J w ofjudgment of this Court in atiala Vs. Joginder Kaur” Law n held as under:- 988, Section 166 - Evidence - of the offending driver in the dgment of the criminal Court is The claims tribunal has to come d conclusions.” be made to judgment of the d another vs. Satya Pradyuman No.7368 of 2013 decided on nder:- 88, Section 166 - Contributory ion between Truck and a Car - et of negligence against both the e Tribunal - Tribunal not to record gence on basis of charge sheet - produced before it.” ove, the learned Counsel for the ively and thoroughly, could not the contributory negligence of ought to be made on the basis of rcumstances of the case, the “Jeyarani and another vs. The 18 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Manager Baja Civil Appeal relevant where 28. counsel for the 29. income of the have examine working as tru but they faile deceased duri record to prov be taken that monthly incom rate of wages office of Labou 30. deceased was Bajaj Allianz General Insurance C eal No.4310-4311 of 2023 decid herein it has been held as under:- “A. Contributory negligence - Sta no negligence on part of rider o same, no rebuttal evidence to sh two-wheeler - Therefore, High Co the conclusion that there was con of rider of two-wheeler - Hence, negligence set aside.” No judgment to the con r the appellant. As regards, quantum of co f the deceased as assessed by the ined one Ram Lal who simply d s truck body maker and he was ear failed to produce on record any during assessment years 2015-16. N prove that deceased was a truck bo that deceased was working as an ncome was assessed as Rs.8,220/ ages payable for month and daily abour Commissioner, Chandigarh fo Although it has been argue was 29 years old at the time of ac e Company Ltd. And another” ecided on 10.07.2023, is also Statement of eye witness that er of two-wheeler - As against to shows negligence of rider of gh Court cannot have arrived at s contributory negligence on part nce, finding holding contributory contrary, is cited by learned f compensation,I find no error in the learned Tribunal. Claimants ly deposed that deceased was s earning Rs.40,000/- per month any other return furnished by 16. No document was placed on k body maker. Therefore, it is to s an unskilled labourer and his 20/- as per the list of minimum aily rated employees, issued by h for relevant period. rgued by the claimants that the f accident, however, as per the 18 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document postmortem r deceased was added at the deduction oug has to be app learned Tribun and Rs. 1 lac claimants bein As such spous each. Rs.25,00 sum of ₹16,5 towards loss o the Tribunal, w Addition Annual in Deductio Multiplie Consortiu Funeral e m report, age of the deceased is was in private job. Accordingly, f the rate of 40%. There are three ought to have been made. As per r applied and not 16. As regards, t ribunal has granted Rs. 1 lac toward lac to minor daughter, which is being the widow, minor, daughter, pousal, filial, and parental consorti 5,000/- has been granted towards f 16,500/- is payable towards funer oss of a state. The total amount a , which is revised as follows: – Rs.8,200/- per m tion of 40% Rs.8,200/- + Rs.3 al income Rs.11,480/- X 12 ction of 1/3rd Rs.1,37,760/- - iplier of 17 Rs.91,840/- X 17 ortium Rs.15,61,280/-+R Rs.17,05,280/- ral expenses Rs. 16,500/– is recorded as 35. Admittedly, ly, future prospects have to be hree claimants, therefore, 1/3rd er relevant law, Multiplier of 17 ds, the conventional heads, the wards loss of consortium to wife h is excessive. There are three ter, and father of the deceased. sortium is payable @ ₹48,000/- rds funeral expenses. However, a neral expenses; and ₹16,500/– nt awarded is Rs.20,00,520/- by er month Rs.3,280/- = Rs.11,480/- 12 = Rs.1,37,760/- Rs.45,920/- = Rs.91,840/- 17 = Rs.15,61,280/- +Rs.1,44,000/- (48000x3) = SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Loss of e 31. all the respon compensation compensation maintained. 32. be dismissed 13.03.2024 i.e judgment of t held as under: of estate Rs. 16,500/– Rs. 17,38,280/– The tribunal further awarded 7.5 spondents jointly and severally lia tion. The above factors and t tion was disbursed amongst the c The cross-objections filed b sed on the short ground that the 4 i.e. almost 8 years after passing o of this Court in National Insurance der:- “Civil Procedure Code, 1908 objection - Condonation o month for filing the cross Order 41, Rule 22 of the CP of service of notice on the and the cross-objectors ha any reasonable or sufficien 41, Rule 22 of the Code are Limitation Act, 1963, i.e., w remedy, by efflux of tim consequential benefit to th huge and cannot be cond – 7.5% interest. The Tribunal held ly liable to pay the amount of d the manner in which the he claimants by the Tribunal, is led by the claimants are liable to the same have been filed on g of the Award; whereas, as per ance Co. Ltd. (supra) it has been 1908, Order 41, Rule 22 - Cross- on of delay - Limitation of one oss-objections as provided under e CPC commences from the date n the respondent or his pleader rs have been unable to furnish icient cause - Provisions of Order are akin to the provisions of the i.e., when such provisions bar a time, to one party, it gives to the opposite party - Delay is condoned - Application seeking 18 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 33. filed by the cla company is pa compensation 34. 14.02.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo condonation of delay in f dismissed - As a consequen also dismissed.” In view of the above disc e claimants are dismissed; and the partly allowed in the above term tion. Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No in filing the cross-objections is quence, the cross-objections are discussion, the cross-objections the appeal filed by the insurance terms on ground of quantum of if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 18 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document