JASWINDER KUMAR vs PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR — FAO/3401/2018
Case under No Acts Defined. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 14th May 2026.
CNR: PHHC011138192018
Filing Number
FAO/3401/2018
Filing Date
22-Mar-2018
Registration No
FAO/3401/2018
Registration Date
07-Jun-2018
Judge
Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma
Coram
Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma
Category
23.9 - FAO AGST INDIAN LUNANCY ACT M-1) ( 489 )
Judicial Branch
CIVIL REVISION BRANCH-I
Decision Date
14-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 01-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.JASWINDER KUMAR
Adv. ARUN JINDAL
Respondent(s)
-
1.PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
14-May-2026
Mrs. Justice Sudeepti SharmaView PDF
Summary of FAO/3401/2018 - Jaswinder Kumar v. PEPSU Road Transport Corporation The High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed Jaswinder Kumar's appeal and substantially enhanced motor accident compensation from Rs. 18,38,113 to Rs. 85,38,113 (net enhancement of Rs. 67 lakhs), citing the claimant's 100% permanent disability, grossly underestimated income assessment by the tribunal, and inadequate awards for pain/suffering and attendant charges under Motor Vehicles Act principles. The court awarded 9% interest from petition filing date, excluding the 2208-day delay period, directing deposit within two months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
22-Mar-2018
Case filed
Registration No. FAO/3401/2018
Summary of FAO/3401/2018 - Jaswinder Kumar v. PEPSU Road Transport Corporation The High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed Jaswinder Kumar's appeal and substantially enhanced motor accident compensation from Rs. 18,38,113 to Rs. 85,38,113 (net enhancement of Rs. 67 lakhs), citing the claimant's 100% permanent disability, grossly underestimated income assessment by the tribunal, and inadequate awards for pain/suffering and attendant charges under Motor Vehicles Act principles. The court awarded 9% interest from petition filing date, excluding the 2208-day delay period, directing deposit within two months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts