Kulwant Singh vs Pushpa Pandey And Ors

FAO-5602-2005 (O&M) - 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
238 FAO-5602-2005 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 01.09.2026
KULWANT SINGH AND ANOTHER
.....APPELLANTS

VERSUS
PUSHPA PANDEY AND OTHERS
.....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present : Mr. Kartar Singh, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)
for the appellants.
Ms. Meena, Advocate/Amicus Curiae
for the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. Satpal Bhasin, Advocate for respondent No.4.
Mr. Bhagwat Dayal Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.5.
Mr. Anil Mehra, Advocate for respondent No.6.
*
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral)
1. The matter is being taken up in the post lunch session.
2. The present appeal has been instituted by the driver and
owner of truck No.PJA-9977 against the Award dated 05.09.2005 passed
by the Motor Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short “Tribunal”) in
MACT Case No.39 of 2005, whereby the Tribunal has held that the
accident in question took place due to contributory negligence on the part
of respondent No.1-driver of truck No.PJA-9977 (appellant No.1 in the
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.03 19:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5602-2005 (O&M) - 2 -
present appeal) as well as on account of rash and negligent driving on the
part of respondent No.4-driver of vehicle make Qualis bearing No.HR-
01M-0004 namely Jai Pal , which was owned by respondent No.5 and
insured with respondent No.6 and respondents No.1 and 2 have been held
liable to pay 50% amount of compensation to the claimants, jointly and
severally and remaining 50% is payable by respondents No.4 to 6, jointly
and severally.
3. Case of claimants Smt. Pushpa Pandey etc. is that on
14.12.2002, Ghansham Pandey (since deceased), who was employed as
an accountant with M/s Ram Ditta Mal and sons, Kurukshetra, boarded
Qualis car bearing No.HR-01M-0004 (hereinafter referred to as
“offending car”) from Delhi to Kurukshetra after attending some
marriage function. The car was being driven by respondent No.4-Jai pal
in a rash and negligent manner and at a fast speed. Another occupant of
the car by the same name namely Jaipal had warned the driver of the car
not to drive the same at a fast speed and in a negligent manner but he did
not pay any heed. At about 5:30 a.m., when the car reached near Meerut
Chowk, G.T. Road, Karnal, a truck bearing No.PJA-9977 (hereinafter
referred to as “offending truck”) , being driven by respondent No.1 was
going ahead of the said car. The truck driver suddenly applied brakes, as a
result of which, the car struck against the rear portion of the truck.
Ghansham Pandey, who was sitting on the front left seat, suffered
multiple injuries and died at the spot. The other occupants of the car also
suffered injuries in the said accident. It is further submitted that the
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.03 19:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5602-2005 (O&M) - 3 -
accident took place due to contributory negligence on the part of drivers
of the offending truck as well as offending car. FIR bearing No.375 dated
14.12.2002, Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal under Section 279, 337,
304- A IPC was registered regarding the accident in question. It is further
submitted that deceased was 34 years of age and was employed as
accountant with M/s Ram Ditta Mal and Sons, Commission Agents,
Kurukshetra and was getting salary of Rs.6,000/- per month.
4. Respondents No.1 and 2, who are the driver and owner of
the offending truck, in their written statement, took a plea that accident in
question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of
driver of the offending car as he was driving the car at a fast speed. It was
denied that the truck was not having any rear lights and they sought
dismissal of the claim petition.
5. Respondents number 4 and 5, who are the driver and owner
of the offending car also admitted the factum of accident but alleged that
the same took place due to fault of the truck driver, who suddenly applied
brakes and stopped the truck, as a result of which, car rammed in the
truck from behind. It was further claimed that car was insured with
United India Insurance Company/respondent No.6.
6. Respondent No.6 also filed its written statement and took the
similar pleas as taken by respondents No.4 and 5. It was also submitted
that the insured has violated terms and conditions of the insurance policy
and driver did not possess a valid and effective driving license and
dismissal of the claim petition was sought.
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.03 19:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5602-2005 (O&M) - 4 -
7. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed
by the learned Tribunal:-
“1. Whether the accident in question resulting into death
of Ghansham Pandey was caused on account of rash
and negligent driving of truck No.PJA-9977; by
respondent no.1 Kulwant Singh or by driving of Car
No.HR-01M-0004, by respondent no.4 or both? OPP
2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether the claimant is entitled
to compensation, if so to what extent and from whom?
OPP
3. Whether the respondent no.1, driver of the Truck in
question was holding a valid and effective driving
license at the time of alleged accident?OPR
4. Whether the claim petition has been filed in collusion
with respondents no.1 and 2? OPR
5. Relief.”
8. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.
9. After hearing the parties and on going through the material
on file, learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident in
question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of
drivers of both the vehicles and their liability was apportioned to the
extent of 50:50. Claimants were awarded a total compensation of
Rs.6,36,000/- under issue No.2 and it was ordered that 50% amount shall
be payable by respondents No.1 and 2, i.e. the driver and owner of the
offending truck and remaining 50% shall be paid by respondents No.4 to
6, i.e. driver, owner and insurer of the offending car jointly and severally.
10. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been instituted by
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.03 19:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5602-2005 (O&M) - 5 -
the owner and driver of the truck. The material on file has been perused
and parties have been heard.
11. Learned counsel/amicus curiae for the appellants argued that
the impugned award vide which the Tribunal has held that the accident
took place due to contributory negligence of the drivers of both the
vehicles is contrary to the facts and evidence on file. The evidence on file
has not been appreciated in the correct perspective and the findings of the
Tribunal are based on conjecture and surmises. Learned counsel
contended that one of the occupants of offending car, namely Jai Pal, was
examined as PW3 and he has categorically stated that respondent No.4
was driving the offending car at a high speed and he had warned him on
several occasions to drive it at a normal speed and not in a rash and
negligent manner but he did not pay any heed and the offending car had
struck against the offending truck from behind. Learned counsel next
contended that a vehicle coming from behind is required to maintain
proper distance from the vehicle going ahead, so as to avoid any collision
in case the vehicle going ahead applies brakes due to some reason
whereas respondent No.4, driver of car, was not maintaining proper
distance and was driving the same at a high speed and the only inference
that can be drawn is that accident in question had taken place solely due
to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.4. Learned
counsel contended that the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal is
thus liable to be set aside and it is only respondents No.4 to 6, who are
liable to pay compensation to the claimants. In support of his contentions,
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.03 19:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5602-2005 (O&M) - 6 -
learned counsel has cited 2026 INSC 208, Oriental Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and Ors.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for Insurance Company
argued that the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal are not liable to
be interfered with. The facts of the case and evidence on file have been
appreciated in the correct perspective, whereby drivers of both the
vehicles have been held liable to have contributed to the accident.
Learned counsel contended that the truck driver was not required to apply
sudden brakes and since he applied sudden brakes, it resulted in the
accident as the driver of the Qualis car could not control his vehicle and
struck against the truck from behind and as such, both of them have
contributed to the accident and finding on issue No.1 is thus not required
to be interfered with.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel/amicus curiae for
respondents No.1 to 3 argued that inadequate compensation has been
awarded by the Tribunal. Learned counsel next contended that future
prospects have not been added to the monthly income of the deceased
contrary to settled provisions of law. Learned counsel contended that the
Tribunal has applied multiplier of 14, whereas multiplier of 16 ought to
have been applied to the loss of dependency. Learned counsel next
contended that a sum of Rs.20,000/- has been paid for funeral expenses,
transportation and loss of consortium whereas no compensation has been
paid for loss of estate. Learned counsel submitted that the compensation
awarded under the conventional heads is inadequate and he prayed that
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.03 19:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5602-2005 (O&M) - 7 -
appropriate compensation be awarded under all the heads by suitably
enhancing the amount. Learned counsel next contended that despite the
fact that the claimants have not filed any appeal or cross-objections for
enhancement of compensation, this Court has vide powers to enhance the
compensation even in an appeal instituted by the driver and owner
against the award and she prayed that compensation be suitably
enhanced. In support of her contentions, learned counsel has relied upon
2009(6) SCC 121 Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Another, 2017 (16) SCC 680 National Insurance Co.
Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Other , 2018 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 333, ‘Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram &
Others and (2021) 11 SCC 780 , United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Satinder Kaur and judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Law Finder Doc ID #2884320, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Taraqqi Lal (Since Deceased) and others .
14. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that the record
of the present appeal and the Tribunal has got burnt in a fire incident in
the High Court Registry and the present appeal has to be decided on the
basis of the facts and evidence discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned
Award and paperbook furnished by the parties.
15. Claimants, in support of their case, have examined one of the
occupants of the car, namely Jai Pal as PW3. He has tendered his
affidavit in terms of Order 18 Rule 4 CPC and deposed that he was
working with M/s Dhingra Rice Mill, Umri, District Kurukshetra and had
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.03 19:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5602-2005 (O&M) - 8 -
gone to Delhi to attend the marriage of daughter of Shri Surender
Dhingra. After attending the marriage, he along with Ram Ditta Mal
Dhingra, Smt. Sumitra Devi, driver of one Parveen Nagpal and
Ghansham Pandey (deceased) was returning from Delhi to Kurukshetra
on 14.12.2002 in Qualis car No.HR-01M-0004. He deposed that other
occupants of the car were asleep while he was awake. He stated that
driver of the car was driving the car at a fast speed. He advised him to
drive the car at a moderate speed but he did not pay any heed and told
him that he was in a hurry to reach Kurukshetra. When their car reached
near Meerut Chowk, Karnal, driver of truck No.PJA-9977 moving ahead
of the car, applied brakes but due to fast speed, the driver of Qualis car
could not control the car which struck against the truck from behind
resulting in the death of Ghansham Pandey. During cross-examination by
learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, he admitted that the driver of
the vehicle should maintain distance from the vehicle going ahead of it.
During cross-examination by learned counsel for the Insurance Company,
he stated that they started from Delhi at 2:30 a.m. for going to
Kurukshetra. He was sitting on the rear seat while Ghansham Pandey was
sitting on the left front seat. He stated that truck was moving towards
Karnal with which the car had collided. He reiterated that he was awake
while other passengers were sleeping. He denied the suggestion that
accident took place due to negligence of the truck driver and further
reiterated that the offending car was being driven at a fast speed.
16. In this manner, one of the occupants of the car has
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.03 19:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5602-2005 (O&M) - 9 -
categorically deposed that the offending car was being driven at a fast
speed and driver had not slowed down the speed of the car despite his
request as he was in a hurry to reach his destination. On the other hand,
respondent No.4, who was driving the Qualis car, has not dared to step
into the witness box and to controvert the testimony of PW3 Jai Pal. The
testimony of PW3 has thus gone unrebutted and there is thus no reason to
disbelieve his testimony from which it is established that the offending
Qualis car was being driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent
manner and driver refused to drive it at a slow speed despite being asked
to do so by PW3. He also did not maintain proper distance from the
vehicles going ahead and struck against the truck from behind when the
truck driver applied brakes. In Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Tata
AIG General Insurance Company’s case (supra) , Hon’ble Supreme
Court in a similar case has held as under:-
“10. We also have to notice 2018(2) RCR (Civil) 891,
Nishan Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
which dealt with a similar case of a car following a truck at
a distance of 10 to 15 feet which was found to be not a
sufficient distance as mandated by law, especially looking at
Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989.
Regulation 23 provides that the driver following another
vehicle should maintain sufficient distance from the vehicle
going in the front to avoid a collision, keeping in mind the
possibility of a sudden slowing down or stoppage. The
Regulation has to be followed by the drivers on the road
failing which it would be deemed to be negligent driving. In
this case, the Cleaner of the vehicle who was travelling
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.03 19:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5602-2005 (O&M) - 10 -
inside the truck categorically stated that the distance
between the two vehicles was only 20 feet. He is a person
conversant with road safety norms, we should presume, by
virtue of his avocation and he also categorically stated the
safe distance to be maintained to avert an accident. The
Cleaner deposed to the fact that the distance kept by his
driver from the vehicle moving in the front was not adequate
and sufficient so as to control the vehicle at the back, if the
vehicle at the front abruptly stopped.
11. We are of the opinion that the High Court erred in
reversing the well-considered order of the Tribunal based on
the evidence led before it. We, hence, reverse the order of the
High Court and restore that of the Tribunal, mulcting the
liability on the respondent insurance company in the above
appeal.
12. The learned counsel for the respondent persisted and
attempted to persuade us to find contributory negligence; for
which we find absolutely no valid evidence.
13. The appeal stands allowed.”
17. As such, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Tata AIG
General Ins. Co.’s case (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of the
case in hand, in which case also, the cleaner of the truck had categorically
deposed that the driver of the truck was not maintaining proper distance
from the vehicle going ahead of their Truck and same was not adequate
and sufficient so as to control the vehicle at the back, if the vehicle in the
front abruptly stopped. In this case also, the truck driver was solely held
liable for causing the accident by way of rash and negligent driving as he
struck against the vehicle going ahead when the vehicle going ahead had
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.03 19:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5602-2005 (O&M) - 11 -
applied brakes.
18. As a result of aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered
opinion that the accident in question had taken place solely due to rash
and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.4. However, learned
Tribunal has not appreciated the facts of the case and material on file in
the correct perspective while coming to the conclusion that accident had
taken place due to contributory negligence of drivers of both the vehicles.
The finding on issue No.1 is thus not sustainable and the same is
accordingly reversed and it is held that the accident took place solely due
to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.4.
19. The next point to be decided is as to whether this Court
while deciding an appeal instituted by the driver and owner of truck
against the award of compensation can enhance the compensation
without any appeal or cross-objections having been filed by the
claimants. The answer to this question is certainly in the affirmative. A
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Taraqqi Lal’s case (supra) , while
placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
(2021) 16 SCC 467, Surekha and Ors. Vs. Santosh and Ors., has held
that the Appellate Court has jurisdiction to enhance compensation even
when claimant has not filed cross-appeal or cross-objections as
assessment of just compensation is the statutory duty of the court and
procedural technicalities cannot deprive claimant of his legitimate
entitlement. In Surekha Vs. Santosh’s case (supra) , High Court of
Judicature at Bombay while deciding the appeal filed by the Insurance
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.03 19:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5602-2005 (O&M) - 12 -
Company had held that compensation amount payable to claimants ought
to have been Rs.49,85,376/- but declined to grant enhancement merely on
the ground that claimants/appellants had failed to file cross-appeal.
However, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the matter of insurance
claim compensation in reference to the motor accident cases, the courts
should not take hypertechnical approach and should ensure that just
compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants and
awarded the enhanced compensation as assessed by Bombay High Court.
As such, it is held that compensation can be reassessed by this Court
without any appeal having been filed by the claimants.
20. The next point is to be decided as to how much
compensation should be awarded to the claimants. The term `just
compensation’ has been elaborated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2009(1)
RCR (Civil) 867 (SC), Syed Basheer Ahamed and Others Vs. Mohd.
Jameel and Another , and it has been held that while assessing
compensation in a motor accident claims case, the Tribunal should award
compensation which appears to be just. The expression “which appears to
be just” vests a wide discretion in the Tribunal in the matter of
determination of compensation. Nevertheless, the wide amplitude of such
power does not empower the Tribunal to determine the compensation
arbitrarily, or to ignore settled principles relating to determination of
compensation. It has been further held that although the Act is a
beneficial legislation, it can neither be allowed to be used as a source of
profit, nor as a windfall to the persons affected nor should it be punitive
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.03 19:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5602-2005 (O&M) - 13 -
to the persons liable to pay compensation and that determination of
compensation must be based on certain data establishing reasonable
nexus between the loss incurred by the victim or dependents. It has been
further held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot
be the guiding factors for determining the compensation. As such,
compensation is required to be assessed by taking into consideration
above-said parameters.
21. As per version of claimants, deceased was working as an
accountant with M/s Ram Ditta Mal and Sons and he was also working
on part-time basis with some other firms. However, the Tribunal on the
basis of evidence on file assessed the monthly income of the deceased to
be Rs.5,500 per month. The Tribunal deducted one-third amount towards
personal expenses and assessed monthly loss of dependency to be
Rs.3,667.67/- and after applying multiplier of 14, awarded a sum of
Rs.6,16,000/- to which a sum of Rs.20,000/- were added for funeral
expenses, transportation and loss of consortium and total compensation of
Rs.6,36,000/- was awarded.
22. To prove his income, claimants have examined PW4
Jitendra Dhingra, an employee with M/s Ram Ditta Mal and Sons, PW5
Baldev, an employee of M/s Dhingra Trading Co., PW6 Ramphal Singh,
an employee with M/s Ranbir Singh Sumit Kumar, Commission Agents,
Kurukshetra. However, learned Tribunal relied upon Ex.P3 and Ex.P4
and assessed income of the deceased to be Rs.5,500/- per month and there
is thus no reason to take a contrary view. Accordingly, the income of the
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.03 19:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5602-2005 (O&M) - 14 -
deceased is taken as Rs.5,500/- per month .
23. As per school certificate Ex.P3, age of the deceased was 34
years as has been held by the Tribunal and as such, 40% amount thus has
to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects in
view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), which takes his
income to Rs.7,700/- per month (Rs.5,500/- + Rs.2,200/-) .
24. The petition was instituted before the Tribunal by wife and
two children of the deceased. Accordingly, it is held that deceased has left
behind 3 dependents and 1/3rd of the income thus has to be deducted
towards personal and living expenses as per law laid down in Sarla
Verma’s case (supra) . After deducting a sum of Rs.2,567/- towards
personal expenses, the monthly loss of dependency comes out to
Rs.5,133/- (Rs.7,700/- - Rs.2,567/-) and the annual loss of dependency
comes out to Rs.61,596/- (Rs.5,133/- x 12) .
25. As per guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) ,
multiplier of 16 has to be applied as deceased was 34 years of age and
after applying the same, the compensation comes to Rs.9,85,536/-
(Rs.61,596/- X 16).
26. In addition to this, respondent No.1 / claimant (wife of the
deceased) is held entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- under conventional
heads i.e. Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards
loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- on account of funeral expenses, as per law
laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). Likewise, respondents No.2
and 3/claimants who are children of deceased are also held entitled to a
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.03 19:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5602-2005 (O&M) - 15 -
sum of Rs.40,000/- each on account of loss of parental consortium, in
view of law laid down in ‘Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu
Ram’s case (supra) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder
Kaur’s case (supra), , which takes the compensation to Rs.11,35,536/- .
27. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the
claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 is assessed as under:-
S.No. Under Head Compensation assessed by this
Court
1. Age of deceased 34 years
2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.5,500/- per month
3. Future prospects @ 40% Rs.2,200/-
4. Total income Rs.7,700/- per month
5. Number of dependents 3
6. Deduction towards personal
expenses of the deceased
(1/3rd)
Rs.2,567/-
7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.5,133/-
8. Annual loss of dependency Rs.61,596/- (Rs.5,133/- x 12)
9. Multiplier 16
10. Compensation on account of Rs.9,85,536/- (Rs.61,596/- X 16)
Loss of dependency
11. Compensation under
conventional heads to
respondent No.1/wife
Rs.70,000/-
12. Loss of parental consortium
to respondents No.2 and
3/children of the deceased
Rs.80,000/-
(Rs.40,000 X 2)
Total Compensation Rs.11,35,536/-(rounded off to
Rs.11,35,500/-)
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.03 19:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5602-2005 (O&M) - 16 -
28. Resultantly, with the aforesaid modification in the Award
regarding enhancement of compensation, the appeal filed by the driver
and owner of the offending truck stands allowed. Claimants/respondents
No.1 to 3 are held entitled to a sum of Rs.11,35,500/- as compensation.
The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.4,99,500/-
(Rs.11,35,500/- – Rs.6,36,000/-) over and above the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum
from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 18.10.2004, till realization,
payable by respondents No.4 to 6 i.e. driver, owner and insurer of the
offending car, jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a
sum of Rs.75,000/- each be paid to the claimants/respondents No.2 and 3-
children of deceased along with proportionate interest and remaining
amount be paid to claimant/respondent No.1-wife along with
proportionate interest.
29. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the
judgment to the respondent Insurance Company in terms of directions
issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.534 of
2020 titled Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Versus Union
of India and others, decided on 16.03.2021 and Insurance Company
shall comply with the directions as issued under Clause (F) of the said
judgment.
30. Since the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 had not filed an
appeal for enhancement of compensation and are represented before this
Court through Amicus Curiae, copy of judgment be sent to MACT,
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.03 19:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5602-2005 (O&M) - 17 -
Kurukshetra as well as Secretary-cum-CJM, DLSA, Kurukshetra
who shall get the copy of this judgment communicated to the claimants at
their address i.e. House No.517, Sector 13, Kurukshetra and their counsel
Sh. Kamal Gupta, Advocate, who had instituted the claim petition, so that
they can recover enhanced amount of compensation.
31. Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
JUDGE
01.09.2026
Priyanka Thakur
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.03 19:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document