1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8698 OF 2015 (Arising from the SLP (C) No.29893/2015) (Arising from the SLP(C)..CC No.10056 of 2015) SUMITRA DEVI & ORS. ..APPELLANT (S) VERSUS SANJAY AND ORS. ..RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R 1. Mr. S.L. Gupta, learned counsel, who is present in Court and appears for the Insurance Company is directed to accept notice on behalf of Respondent No.3, Insurance Company, in this matter. 2. Delay condoned. 3. Leave granted. 4. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No.5361 of 2013, dated 30.10.2013. 5. The appellants/claimants are the family members of the deceased, who met with an accident and succumbed to his injuries. On the claim made by the claimants,
2 the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (for short, “the Tribunal”) had awarded a compensation of Rs.5,38,400/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 6. Being aggrieved by the compensation so awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants/claimants preferred an appeal before the High Court for enhancement of the compensation. The High Court, by its impugned judgment and order has allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.5,38,400/- to Rs.7,11,600/- With 7.5% interest per annum. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and order so passed by the High Court the appellants/claimants are before us. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 9. After carefully going through the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the Tribunal as well as the High Court and keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to further enhance the compensation by Rs.2,00,000/-.
3 10. Accordingly, while allowing the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants, we modify the judgment and order passed by the High Court and enhance the compensation by Rs.2,00,000/- over and above the award so passed by the High Court with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of the order passed by the High Court. 11. Insurance Company is directed to settle the professional fees of Mr. S.L. Gupta, learned counsel, at the earliest. 12. The Civil Appeal is disposed of accordingly. .............CJI. (H.L. DATTU) ...............J. (ARUN MISHRA) NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 15, 2015.
4 ITEM NO.31 COURT NO.1 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)...CC No.10056/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30/10/2014 in FAO No. 5361/2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh) SUMITRA DEVI & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS SANJAY AND ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing the SLP) Date : 15/10/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Niraj Jha, Adv. Mr. Vinod Sharma, Adv. Mr. Arun Singh, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. S.L. Gupta, Adv. Mr. Varinder Kr. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vikash Chandra, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (Neetu Khajuria) Sr.P.A. (Vinod Kulvi) Assistant Registrar (Signed order is placed on the file.)
SECTION IVB Listed on 15.10.2015 Court No.1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Item No.30 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.1 & 2 (Application for condonation of delay in filing and refiling the SLP) IN PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL(CIVIL)CC NO. 10056 OF 2015 Smt. Sumitra Devi & Ors. Petitioner(s) Versus Sanjay & Ors. Respondent(s) OFFICE REPORT It is submitted that the above mentioned Special Leave Petition is filed by Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, Advocate on 27.03.2015 against the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.2014 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 5361 of 2013 . It is further submitted that Counsel for the petitioner has filed two applications for condonation of delay in filing the SLP and refiling the SLP (i) there is a delay of 52 days in filing the SLP (ii) a delay of 34 days in refiling the SLP. There is a total delay of 86 days in filing and refiling the SLP. It is further submitted Counsel for the petitioner has not furnished copy of exhibits mentioned in the impugned order . In this regard, Counsel has given a letter dated 01.06.2015 stating therein that the same are not relevant and not to be relied upon during the course of argument. Counsel for the petitioner has on 1.6.2015 also given an undertaking to file document i.e. PCR Vol.III 2012, PCR(3) Civil 77. In this regard it is submitted that Counsel for the petitioner has on 10.10.2015 filed the said document but it is defective for the reason that it has dim impression and improper print. However, the same is circulated before the Hon'ble Court with this office report.
The matter is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. Dated this the 14 th day of October, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to: Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar ,Adv. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Haokip
üNo data found.No data found.No data found.No data found.No data found.No data found.No data found.No data found.No data found.