(O&M) United India Insurance Company v. Jagjit Singh And ORS


  

 

 



 




 






 

  !"
"


#!
$%
& " '#
()(
# )*
"
#

Present :

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the applicant-respondents.

Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocate for the United India Insurance Company.

Mr. Amit Kundra, Advocate for respondent No.8.

***   

  Reply on behalf of respondent No.8 has been filed and the same is taken on record. Copy supplied to the counsel opposite. This is an application for condonation of 386 days' delay on the ground that the applicants are poor rustic villagers and after receiving the order passed by this Court had approached their counsel in order to get executed the said order and it is only when they filed an execution that they came to know of this mistake. Reply has been filed wherein it has been mentioned that the ground taken is not sufficient cause to condone the delay. In my opinion, once this mistake has been pointed out the question of delay can be settled by clarifying that no interest would be payable for the delayed period.

Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is allowed in the above terms.

POOJA SHARMA 2015.09.23 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

  

 

 
 


 




 






 

 


  I find that even while enhancing the compensation no provision was made for interest on the enhanced amount whereas the Tribunal had awarded interest @9% from the date of filing the application.

The review application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant would be entitled to interest @9% from the date of the application the date of payment. However no interest would be payable for the 386 days delay which has been caused in the filing of this application.

(AJAY TEWARI) September 21, 2015 JUDGE Pooja Sharma-I POOJA SHARMA 2015.09.23 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh