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.

Executive Engineer (Operation) Vs. Executive Engineer (Operation)

Executive Engineer (Operation) vs Executive Engineer (Operation)

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Jan 31, 2014
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1125135

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

Executive Engineer (Operation)

Respondent

Executive Engineer (Operation)

Excerpt

vinod kumar 2014.02.10 11:30 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh rs.no.3917 of 2012 (o&m) [1].***** in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh rs.no.3917 of 2012 (o&m) date of decision:31.01.2014 executive engineer (operation) punjab state electricity board, pathankot ...appellant versus master sahil and anoth er ...respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice rakesh kumar jain present: mr.aps sandhu, advocate, for the appellant. ***** rakesh kumar jain, j. the defendant is in appeal. the plaintiff filed suit for recovery of `20,00,000/- as damages on account of injuries suffered by him due to electrocution because of the negligence of the defendants and suffered 100% permanent disability as he has lost his legs and arms.the trial court awarded `20,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its actual realization assessing the compensation under various heads, which has been reduced by the lower appellate court to `10,00,000/-. still, this appeal has been filed on the ground that the accident took place due to negligence of the plaintiff and the compensation awarded is on the higher side. after hearing learned counsel for the appellant, i have vinod kumar 2014.02.10 11:30 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh rs.no.3917 of 2012 (o&m) [2].***** not found any reason to differ with the finding of fact recorded by both the courts below in regard to the negligence of the appellant and insofar as the amount of compensation is concerned, the lower appellate court has not given any cogent reason to reduce the same. counsel for the appellant has very fairly submitted that the plaintiff has also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation. be that as it may, no question of law much-less substantial is found to have been involved in this appeal. consequently, the same is hereby dismissed. january 31, 2014 (rakesh kumar jain) vinod* judge

Full Judgment

vinod kumar 2014.02.10 11:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Rs.No.3917 of 2012 (O&M) [1].***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rs.No.3917 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:31.01.2014 Executive Engineer (Operation) Punjab State Electricity Board, Pathankot ...Appellant Versus Master Sahil and anoth er ...Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain Present: Mr.APS Sandhu, Advocate, for the appellant.

***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.

The defendant is in appeal.

The plaintiff filed suit for recovery of `20,00,000/- as damages on account of injuries suffered by him due to electrocution because of the negligence of the defendants and suffered 100% permanent disability as he has lost his legs and arMs.The Trial Court awarded `20,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its actual realization assessing the compensation under various heads, which has been reduced by the lower Appellate Court to `10,00,000/-.

Still, this appeal has been filed on the ground that the accident took place due to negligence of the plaintiff and the compensation awarded is on the higher side.

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I have vinod kumar 2014.02.10 11:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Rs.No.3917 of 2012 (O&M) [2].***** not found any reason to differ with the finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below in regard to the negligence of the appellant and insofar as the amount of compensation is concerned, the lower Appellate Court has not given any cogent reason to reduce the same.

Counsel for the appellant has very fairly submitted that the plaintiff has also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation.

Be that as it may, no question of law much-less substantial is found to have been involved in this appeal.

Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed.

January 31, 2014 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial