Bobby And Others v. Ajay Singh Tomer , Ias , Deputy Commissioner Ambala

COCP-2289-2025 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP-2289-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.09.2025 Bobby and others ......Petitioners Vs.

Sh. Ajay Singh Tomer ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present :

Mr. Saroj Malakar, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Ram Karan Sharma, DAG, Haryana, for the respondent.

**** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL) 1.

The present contempt petition has been filed for deliberate and intentional disobedience of order dated 18.08.2023 passed by this Court in CWP-22904-2016.

2.

This Court had issued the following directions in CWP-229042016, vide its order dated 18.08.2023:- "In the event of a claimant/victim approaching the Civil Court for seeking just, fair and equitable compensation, the same shall be decided expeditiously alongwith the applications that may be filed. While computing such compensation, the Civil Court may take the aid of the guidelines/parameters provided under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The period during which the proceedings have remained pending before this Court and/or the Committee shall be taken into consideration while VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.09.29 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

COCP-2289-2025 (O&M) -2computing limitation for institution of the proceedings before the Civil Court.

Additionally, in the cases relating to dog bite, the financial assistance shall be at a minimum of Rs.10,000/- per teeth mark and where the flesh has been pulled off the skin, it shall be a minimum of Rs.20,000/- per "0.2 cm" of wound.

The State shall be primarily responsible to pay compensation with a right to recover the same from the defaulting Agencies/ Instrumentalities of the State and/or the private person, if any."

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that out of total 17 petitioners, the order has been complied with qua 14 petitioners and the respondent has already disbursed the compensation amount to them. 4.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the remaining three petitioners could not be paid earlier as they had failed to appear for medical examination on the first date. However, they have now been examined. Out of them, one has been found ineligible for compensation as per the guidelines and in respect of the other two petitioners, compensation shall be released within a period of two weeks. 5.

In view of the above, the present contempt is purged and rule stands discharged.

6.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE 25.09.2025 Virender Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes Whether reportable : Yes/No VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.09.29 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document