Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Fao No. 150 of 2010 Vs. Sukhdev and Others

Fao No. 150 of 2010 vs Sukhdev and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Nov 19, 2012
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1057023

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Fao No. 150 of 2010

Respondent

Sukhdev and Others

Excerpt

.....up fao no.150 o”2. being driven by sukhdev came and struck sahiba directly. she fell down and received serious injuries. driver of offending vehicle fled from the spot. fir was also lodged. tribunal later came to the conclusion that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by driver of offending vehicle. during proceedings, dr.yogesh jain, consultant surgeon, appeared before the tribunal and deposed that injured suffered fracture of right thigh with perennial and vaginal tear. there was urethral injury. claimant was operated upon for repair of perineum vagina and urethra. close reduction of right femur fracture and fixation of pubic rami were done with plastic. child remained admitted in hospital for considerable period. it is thus evident that great trauma was caused to six years.old injured girl. i thus find that compensation granted on account of pain and suffering is on lower side. claimant would be entitled to another rs.20,000/- on account of pain and suffering. as she may have needed a regular attendant during the period of treatment, she would be entitled to another rs.10,000/- under this head. compensation granted under usual heads such as nutritious diet, transportation etc.also appears to be on lower side. claimant would be entitled to another rs.10,000/- on this account. total compensation is thus enhanced by another rs.40,000/-. appeal is allowed to this extent. rest of award is maintained as such. 19.11.2012 (rajan gupta) pk judge

Full Judgment

FAO No.150 o”

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.150 of 2010 Date of decision:19.11.2012 Sahiba ..Appellant versus Sukhdev and others ..Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Ms.Harmanpreet Kaur, Advocate, Amicus Curiae, for the appellant.

Mr.R.B.S.Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.3..Rajan Gupta, J.

(Oral) This appeal is directed against the award passed by tribunal on the limited question of quantum of compensation.

Ms.Harmanpreet Kaur, Advocate, has put in appearance as amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant and submits that compensation granted on account of pain and suffering is on lower side.

According to her, injured, who was six years old child, suffered great trauma as would be evident from the deposition of Dr.Yogesh Jain, Consultant Surgeon, who appeared as PW1.

Besides compensation granted under usual heads is also on lower side.

Learned counsel appearing for insurance company opposes the plea.

He, however, agrees that serious injuries were suffered by the child.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

It appears that accident took place on 25.4.2008.

Claimant Sahiba accompanied her uncle to bus stop to board school van.

They were waiting on the side of road.

In the meantime, a vehicle Mahindra pick up FAO No.150 o”

2. being driven by Sukhdev came and struck Sahiba directly.

She fell down and received serious injuries.

Driver of offending vehicle fled from the spot.

FIR was also lodged.

Tribunal later came to the conclusion that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by driver of offending vehicle.

During proceedings, Dr.Yogesh Jain, Consultant Surgeon, appeared before the tribunal and deposed that injured suffered fracture of right thigh with perennial and vaginal tear.

There was urethral injury.

Claimant was operated upon for repair of perineum vagina and urethra.

Close reduction of right femur fracture and fixation of pubic rami were done with plastic.

Child remained admitted in hospital for considerable period.

It is thus evident that great trauma was caused to six yeaRs.old injured girl.

I thus find that compensation granted on account of pain and suffering is on lower side.

Claimant would be entitled to another Rs.20,000/- on account of pain and suffering.

As she may have needed a regular attendant during the period of treatment, she would be entitled to another Rs.10,000/- under this head.

Compensation granted under usual heads such as nutritious diet, transportation etc.also appears to be on lower side.

Claimant would be entitled to another Rs.10,000/- on this account.

Total compensation is thus enhanced by another Rs.40,000/-.

Appeal is allowed to this extent.

Rest of award is maintained as such.

19.11.2012 (RAJAN GUPTA) pk JUDGE

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial