AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THESE two appeals have arisen out of the Order dated 22.9.1992 passed by the State Commission, Chandigarh, in Complaint Case No. 136/92 on its file. First Appeal No. 571 has been filed by the complainant seeking an enhancement of the compensation awarded to her by the State Commission. Appeal No. 6/93 has been filed by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Opposite Party in the complaint case) challenging the correctness of the quantum of compensation awarded by the State Commission to complainant on the ground that it is excessive.
WE may, at the very outset, dispose of Appeal No. 6 of 1993. This appeal has been filed after a delay of 47 days. Though an application for condonation of delay has been preferred we are not satisfied that any valid or adequate grounds are set out therein in explanation of the long delay. Inconsequence, this appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is time barred. No costs. Coming to First Appeal No. 571/92, notwithstanding the persuasive arguments advanced before us by Mr. Rudra Kahlon, Counsel appearing for the Appellant we are unable to discern any error of law or even of fact in the reasoning and conclusions recorded by the State Commission on the question as to what would be the reasonable amount to be allowed to the complainant by way of compensation. We, therefore, uphold the Order passed by the State Commission and dismiss this appeal. There will be no order as to costs.
