Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JOGINDER SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr - CWP-2081-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 3410 (25 May 2006)

IN THE COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.2081 of 2005

DATE OF DECISION: July 3, 2006

Joginder Singh

....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab and another

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA

PRESENT: Shri Kamal Grover, Advocate for the petitioner.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral).

The award dated February 11, 2004 passed by the Lok Adalat has been challenged by the petitioner through the present petition.

The only grievance made by the petitioner is that the aforesaid award had been passed by the Lok Adalat without the consent of the petitioner and, therefore, the same was not legally sustainable.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the award dated February 11, 2004 passed by the Lok Adalat, we are satisfied that the grievance made by the petitioner is wholly without any basis.

The award of the Lok Adalat reads as under: "As agreed, as per statements of the representative of the insurance company and counsel for the appellants, separately recorded, a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal, is allowed to the appellants in full and final settlement of the claim. Two months time is allowed to the Insurance Company to make disbursed to the parents of the deceased, namely, Manjit Kaur and Joginder Singh (appellants No.1 and 2) in equal share in cash by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Copy of the order be supplied/sent to the counsel/ parties."

It is apparent from the perusal of the aforesaid award that the award was passed by the Lok Adalat as per the statements of the representative of the Insurance Company and counsel for the appellants, which were recorded separately.

In view of the aforesaid fact, there is absolutely no justification to interfere in the present petition and set aside the impugned award passed by the Lok Adalat.

The present writ petition is consequently dismissed.

(Viney Mittal)

Judge

July 3, 2006 (H.S. Bhalla)

KD Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.