Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SOHRAB versus AJMAT KHAN & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sohrab v. Ajmat Khan & Ors. - FAO-5293-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 5947 (25 August 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

(1) F.A.O. No.5293 of 2005

Sohrab .

............... Appellant

Versus

Ajmat Khan and others.

................ Respondents

(2) F.A.O. No.5294 of 2005

Amru.

............... Appellant

Versus

Ajmat Khan and others.

................ Respondents

Date of Decision: 28.8.2006

CORAM : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Uma Nath Singh
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mahesh Grover

....

Present: Shri Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the appellants.

....

Mahesh Grover,J.

By this judgment, we are disposing of F.A.O. Nos.5293 and 5294 of 2005 preferred by the claimants-appellants assailing the common award dated 7.3.2005 passed in M.V.A. Petition nos. 123 and 206 of 2003 whereby a sum of Rs.2500/- each has been awarded on account of injuries suffered by them in a motor vehicular accident which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration no. RJ-02/ ...

G-7267 by respondent no.1.

Shri Vikas Kumar contended that the compensation of Rs.2500/- awarded to each of the appellants is inadequate and it may be enhanced suitably keeping in view the injuries and mental agony suffered by them.

We have thoughtfully considered the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned award.

The appellants had suffered minor injuries in the said accident.

Although they had deposed in their testimony before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad that Rs.30,000/- and Rs.20/25,000/-, respectively, were spent by them on their treatment, but they failed to substantiate their claim by producing bills/ cash memos in support thereof.

There is no evidence of any serious injury having been suffered by the appellants. Therefore, in our view, the compensation of Rs.2500/- awarded to each of the appellants is just and adequate.

Consequently, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned award and the appeals are dismissed being devoid of any merit.

(Mahesh Grover )

Judge

August 28,2006 (Uma Nath Singh )

"SCM" 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.