U.P State Road Transport Corporation v. Rahul Kumar Garg & ORS

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 07.11.2025 Date of decision : 29.11.2025 Date of Uploading : 29.11.2025 Uttar Pradesh State Roadways Transport Corporation ......Appellant Vs.

Rahul Kumar Garg and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present :

Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Digvijay, Advocate, for Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

**** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1.

The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 03.12.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mewat (for short, 'the Tribunal') in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein, appellant was held liable to pay the compensation to the claimant/respondent No.1 to the tune of Rs.82,69,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, on the ground of quantum of compensation to be on higher side.

2.

As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity.

-2SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES 3.

The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on higher side. He further submits that the appellant is only pressing the quantum part and is not challenging the findings of the learned Tribunal qua the issue of negligence. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and amount of compensation be reduced as per latest law.

4.

Per contra, learned counsel for claimant/respondent No.1, however, vehemently argues that the compensation awarded is on lower side and claimant/ respondent No.1 has preferred FAO-1650-2016, titled as 'Rahul Kumar Garg Vs. Ramesh Chand and others' seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded to claimant/respondent No.1. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal. 5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance. 6.

At the very outset, it is pertinent to note that FAO-1650-2016, titled as 'Rahul Kumar Garg Vs. Ramesh Chand and others' filed by claimant/respondent No.1 has already been allowed by this Court vide order of even date detailing therein regarding every aspect of the arguments raised in the present appeal. In view thereof, the adjudication of the present appeal no longer survives.

7.

In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed.

-38.

The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant at the time of admission of the appeal, is ordered to be refunded to it. 9.

Pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE 29.11.2025 Virender Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No