01 October 2012
Supreme Court
Download

SIMRAT KAUR Vs STATE OF HARYANA .

Bench: H.L. DATTU,CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD
Case number: C.A. No.-007204-007204 / 2012
Diary number: 33310 / 2008
Advocates: RAVINDRA KESHAVRAO ADSURE Vs ARPUTHAM ARUNA AND CO


1

Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.      7204     OF     2012   (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.9766 OF 2009)  

SIMRAT KAUR & ORS.  APPELLANTS

                VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                           RESPONDENTS

O     R     D     E     R   

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and  

order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in  

Regular First Appeal No.3922 of 2007, dated 16.09.2008.

3. On the last date of hearing, we had requested the  

learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 to find out  

whether the respondents are prepared to give the enhanced  

compensation, as was  done by the   High Court in the case of  

Balkar     Singh     &     Anr.   Vs. State     of     Harayana     &     Ors.,   in  

R.F.A.No.2612/1991, dated 14.11.2003.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-

Corporation, on instructions and taking into consideration the  

pathetic condition of the first appellant, submits that the  

respondent-Corporation is prepared to pay the enhanced  

compensation only to the widow, i.e. appellant no.1, in  

accordance with the aforesaid judgment and order of the Punjab  

& Haryana High Court in Balkar Singh's case (supra).

2

Page 2

: 2 :

5. Placing on record the concession so made by learned  

senior counsel for the respondent-Corporation, we dispose of  

the appeal in the following terms :

(i) The respondent-corporation shall pay the enhanced  

compensation to the first appellant, namely, Smt.Simrat  

Kaur, widow of late Shri Jagtar Singh;

(ii) We make it clear that the first appellant and others  

are not entitled to get any interest or solatium on the  

amount that would be paid by the respondent-corporation;

(iii) Our order shall not be treated as a precedent in any  

other case.

Ordered accordingly.  

.......................J. (H.L. DATTU)

.......................J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

NEW DELHI; OCTOBER 01, 2012