RSA No.4575 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. RSA No.4575 of 2009 Date of decision: 10.3.2010 Kishan Singh and others .....Appellants vs. Union of India and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.R.A.Sheoran, Advocate, for the appellants. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) This is plaintiffs' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby their suit for recovery of damages caused to them due to the negligence and carelessness of the defendants due to non grant of medical allowance required for the treatment of wife of plaintiff No.1 was dismissed. As per the averments wife of appellant No.1 fell ill and was admitted in the ITBP Hospital on 6.6.2001 and thereafter, she was referred to PGI Chandigarh for treatment on 8.6.2001 where she remained under treatment. After investigation it was found that she was suffering from “Acute Myeloid Laukemia with Nasal Mars”. It is the further case of the appellants that the PGI informed him that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was required for the treatment of his wife. Thereafter, the appellant immediately made a request to the respondents for grant of Rs.1,50,000/- as advance medical allowance for treatment of his wife as per the estimate issued by the PGI Chandigarh. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, an RSA No.4575 of 2009 2 application for grant of the aforesaid advance complete in all respects was received by the respondents on 9.7.2001. However, the aforesaid amount was not released to him and his wife died on 3.8.2001 for want of treatment. On the basis of the aforesaid averments, the plaintiffs filed suit for recovery of damages against the respondents claiming that the respondents were negligent in sanctioning the loan which has caused the death of the wife of the appellant. The suit was contested by the respondents on the ground that there was no negligence or ill intention on the part of the respondents and it took some time while processing the case to sanction the loan to the appellants. The Courts below on appreciation of evidence recorded a concurrent finding of fact that no negligence or carelessness can be attributed to the department as the respondents swung into action when the application was received and the procedural delay cannot be attributed to the respondents as the sanction was to be made as per the rules. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned and decrees of the Courts below. Admittedly, vide order No.2914-15 dated 31.8.2001, respondents sanctioned a loan of Rs.80,000/-, and the same was actually disbursed. However, the same was redeposited in the government account vide challan No.45/01-02 dated 16.10.2001.There is no evidence on record on the basis of which the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmities. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration. RSA No.4575 of 2009 3 No merit. Dismissed. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge March 10, 2010 rk