← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaFAO/989/2015disposed of

Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd v. Shakuntla Devi And ORS

2018-05-25Mr. Justice Avneesh Jhingan2 pages

FAO No.989 of 2015 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.989 of 2015 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.05.2018 Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. .... Appellant

Versus

Shakuntla Devi and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present :

Mr.Rajan Bhargava, Advocate for Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.R.K.Duggal, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.

Mr. Anil Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4.

**** Avneesh Jhingan, J.

The insurer of the offending vehicle i.e. Mini bus bearing registration No.PB-01-7462 is in appeal against award dated 23.09.2013 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').

The issue raised in the present appeal is that the deceased was a Haryana Govt. Employee and the family would be entitled to benefits under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the dependents of the deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006.

Learned counsel for the appellant states that the Tribunal while awarding compensation has not taken into consideration the said Rules. He argues that it was admitted in the cross-examination of PW3-Daya Nand Soni, LDC that Anju 2018.05.28 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document phhc

FAO No.989 of 2015 (O&M) -2the widow was entitled to full pay of the deceased. No one appears for the claimants inspite of service. It is pertinent to note here that the Insurance Company was proceeded against exparte before the Tribunal. The said issue was not raised by the Insurance Company. Be that as it may, a just and equitable compensation is to be awarded.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to consider the effect of said Rules. It is clarified that remand would subject to the appellant paying Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses to the claimants.

The appeal is disposed of.

(AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE 25.05.2018 anju 1.Whether the order is speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No 2.Whether the order is reportable :

Yes/No