Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER & ANR versus NIRMALA DEVI

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Superintending Engineer & Anr v. Nirmala Devi - FAO-2273-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 783 (15 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

F.A.O. No.2273 of 2004 (O&M)

Date of Decision:16.2.2006

Superintending Engineer and another

Vs.

Nirmala Devi

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
Present:- Shri M.C.Beri, Sr. DAG, Punjab for the applicants- appellants.

****

C.M. No.8864-CII of 2004

This application has been moved for condonation of delay of 491 days in filing the appeal. Application is accompanied by an affidavit.

This Court feels that there are sufficient reasons to condone the delay as the same appears to have been caused due to lethargic attitude of some of the officials and for the said act, State is not to suffer. Accordingly, this application is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal stands condoned.

F.A.O. No.2273 of 2004

On request, appeal is taken up on Board for hearing.

Vide order under challenge, Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, awarded an amount of Rs.1,53,090/- along with interest to the respondent/ claimant, who is widow of the deceased- workman, who died on account of injury suffered by him during the course of his employment. The Commissioner by taking note of evidence on record F.A.O. No.2273 of 2004 (O&M) [2]

has opined that the deceased suffered injury on account of biting given to him, by some poisonous animal, while performing his duty. Counsel for the appellant has failed to disprove this finding of fact at the time of arguments.

Relationship of master and servant is virtually admitted on the record. This Court feels that even amount of compensation is on the lower side.

However, at this stage, no interference can be made in that regard.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the this case, this appeal is dismissed as no substantial question of law has been raised at the time of arguments.

February 16, 2006 ( JASBIR SINGH )

renu 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.