UMRO @ AMRO DEVI vs DISTRICT MANAGER, HAFED, KAITHAL AND ORS.

[251-2] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-6804-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision : 04.05.2026 Umro @ Amro Devi …Appellant versus District Manager, HAFED, Jind Road, Kaithal, Haryana and others ….Respondents Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Siddharth Gulati, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate with Ms. Parul Saini, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) [1] The claimant has been confined to interest for a period of four years only by observing as under:- “22. On the other hand learned Advocate for respondent no.1 argued the incident took place on 19.11.2008 and the applicant filed the present claim application on 14.5.2009 and applicant took about one year to conclude his evidence and the case, was adjourned many times on one pretext to another and respondent no.1 is not liable to pay interest for that period. 23. In view of the above discussion and after perusal of the case file, I find merit in the contention of the learned Advocate for respondent no.1 and allow only four years interest to the applicant @12% per annum. So in view of my above findings, the respondent no.1 is also liable to pay interes