Smt Kundan Devi And Others v. Daily Lok Adalat And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP-14673-2026 Date of Decision: 12.05.2026 SMT KUNDAN DEVI AND OTHERS

...Petitioner

Vs.

DAILY LOK ADALAT AND OTHERS

...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Divij Datt, Advocate for the petitioner *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of award dated 11.07.2022 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Daily Lok Adalat), Gurugram (for short 'MACT').

2.

The petitioners are family members of the deceased-Alok Kumar who met with an accident on 20.01.2016. He suffered multiple injuries. He remained under treatment from 21.01.2016 to 11.04.2016 and from 09.07.2017 to 28.08.2017. He succumbed to aforesaid injuries on 01.10.2018. FIR No.110 dated 21.01.2016 under Sections 279/337, 304-A (added later on) of IPC came to be registered against respondent No.2. The petitioners being entitled to compensation filed claim before MACT seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 crore. The Tribunal vide award dated 11.07.2022 has awarded compensation of Rs.1,10,00,000/- on the basis of compromise arrived at between the petitioners and Insurance Company.

DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.05.12 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP-14673-2026 -23.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits petitioners incurred a sum of Rs.1,28,00,000/-on the treatment of deceased, thus, there was no occasion to settle the claim for a sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/-. The petitioners were under impression that they would get further compensation as per Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioners have been cheated. They innocuously agreed to accept Rs.1,10,00,000/-. The amount paid is contrary to scheme of the Act. 4.

Heard the arguments and perused the record.

5.

From the perusal of record, it is evident that petitioners appeared before the Court and tendered their statement. They were represented by an Advocate. They were not forced to tender statements. There is nothing on record disclosing that their statement was coerced. There seems no reason to interfere with order passed by MACT. The impugned award was passed in July' 2022 and petitioners have approached this Court after almost four years which negates their claim of innocence and being cheated.

6.

In the backdrop, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. 7.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE May 12, 2026 Deepak DPA Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.05.12 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment