NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs BABITA & ORS. — FAO/1662/2001
Case under No Acts Defined. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 13th May 2026.
CNR: PHHC010378412001
Filing Number
FAO/1662/2001
Filing Date
23-May-2001
Registration No
FAO/1662/2001
Registration Date
23-May-2001
Judge
Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta
Coram
Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta
Bench Type
Single
Category
500.2 - NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY ( 885 )
Sub-Category
( 944 )
Judicial Branch
CIVIL REVISION BRANCH-I
Decision Date
13-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 01-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Adv. PRADEEP BEDI
Respondent(s)
-
1.BABITA & ORS.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
13-May-2026
Mr. Justice Deepak GuptaView PDF
FAO/1662/2001 - National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Babita & Ors. Summary: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's finding that a 1998 motor vehicle accident was caused by the truck driver's rash and negligent driving, and dismissed National Insurance Company's appeals challenging the driver's valid license. The court partly allowed claimants' appeals for enhanced compensation, increasing awards for deaths of Jagdish Lal (₹4,38,000 to ₹5,92,500) and Rakesh Kumar (₹3,13,200 to ₹5,63,840), plus 7.5% annual interest, while rejecting the insurer's defense of policy breach. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
23-May-2001
Case filed
Registration No. FAO/1662/2001
FAO/1662/2001 - National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Babita & Ors. Summary: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's finding that a 1998 motor vehicle accident was caused by the truck driver's rash and negligent driving, and dismissed National Insurance Company's appeals challenging the driver's valid license. The court partly allowed claimants' appeals for enhanced compensation, increasing awards for deaths of Jagdish Lal (₹4,38,000 to ₹5,92,500) and Rakesh Kumar (₹3,13,200 to ₹5,63,840), plus 7.5% annual interest, while rejecting the insurer's defense of policy breach. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts