Back
2008 Supreme(J&K) 443
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Vinod Kumar Gupta, J.
Tarsem Lal Sharma & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Yash Paul Sharma & Ors. - Respondent
CIMA No. 10/2003, CMP No. 21/2003
Decided On : 12 December, 2008
Advocate For Appellant: B.B. Kotwal
Advocate For Respondent: Vishnu Gupta
Dependency must be established to claim compensation as a legal heir, and guardianship should prioritize the best interests of minors
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Dispute between paternal uncle and maternal uncle of minor sons of deceased - Sections 140/166 of Motor Vehicles Act - General rules of succession, dependency, and guardianship discussed - Interpretation of legal provisions influenced the court's decision
Fact of the Case:
Dispute between paternal uncle and maternal uncle of minor sons of deceased over compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Appellant Tarsem Lal claimed share in compensation as guardian and legal heir - Maternal uncle Hans Raj claimed guardianship and fair treatment of minors' interests
Finding of the Court:
Court found that appellant Tarsem Lal failed to establish dependency on deceased and was not entitled to claim compensation in his own right - Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to award compensation to minors and appoint maternal uncle as their guardian
Issues: Dispute over entitlement to compensation, guardianship of minors, and fair treatment of minors' interests
Ratio Decidendi: Dependency must be established to claim compensation as a legal heir - Guardianship should prioritize the best interests of minors - Fair treatment and protection of minors' interests are crucial in awarding compensation
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed, and the amount of interim award received by the appellant Tarsem Lal to be recovered by the Insurance Company from him under law
2) The brief admitted facts of the case are that on 18.1.1998 the deceased Rajinder Paul Sharma met with an accident at Miseriwala and was crushed to death by a rashly and negligently driven truck No. JK02-H 685 by Yash Paul Sharma respondent/driver. The deceased left behind two minor sons. A claim petition under sections 140/166 of Motor Vehicles Act was filed in the names of minors through their guardian maternal uncle Hans Raj on 17.3.1998. Subsequently on 19.5.1998 paternal uncle of the minors Tarsem Lal made another claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu by changing the names of minors and also making himself as one of the petitioners. In both the petitions, the petitioners received Rs. 50,000/- as interim relief of compensation. Finally on 31.10.2002 the learned Tribunal made an award of Rs. 3,53,808/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the payment is made. The Tribunal further made an arrangement of payment of Rs. 15,000/- to the minor petitioners through their maternal uncle Hans Raj and directed to keep the remaining amount in fixed deposit in the names of minor petitioners in equal shares till they attain the age of 21 years. The learned Tribunal also directed the petitioner Tarsem Lal, paternal uncle of the minors, to return back the interim award amount received by him in his claim petition.
3) The appellant Tarsem Lal being aggrieved by the award dated 31.10.2002 preferred the instant appeal in his own name and on behalf of minors for enhancement of the compensation and also claiming compensation for himself.
4) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record on the file.
5) Mr. B.B. Kotwal, Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants submits that the appellant Tarsem Lal is guardian of minor sons of deceased Rajinder Paul Sharma, as such, he is entitled to file claim petition on behalf of minors and Hans Raj is self styled guardian and has wrongly put the claim for compensation on behalf of the minors. He has further submitted that Tarsem Lal is brother of the deceased and as such is entitled to claim share in the amount of compensation awarded in the case. He has submitted that general rules of succession shall apply in the case and the appellant Tarseem Lal is entitled to compensation. In support he has relied upon cases titled Parkash Chand vs. Pal Singh & Ors.(AIR 1985 Punjab & Haryana 329), New India Assurance Co Ltd. Vs. Smt. Jasinta Kujur & Ors (AIR 2007 Chhatisgarh 107) and Mahant Shyamdas Guru Mohandas v. Lalaram M. Kori & Ors. (AIR 2008 Madhya Pradesh 47.)
6) On the other hand, Mr. Vishnu Gupta Advocate appearing for the respondents, has submitted that the rights and interests of the minors are to be protected and nobody should be given an opportunity to grab the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the minors. He has submitted that minors are living with their maternal uncle after the death of their mother even during the life time of the deceased and also under the Succession Act a brother being Class-II heir is not entitled to the compensation in presence of Class-I heir. The brother of the deceased Tarsem Lal has not shown his dependency upon the deceased as such he is not entitled to such a relief. He has further submitted that Tarsem Lal paternal uncle filed petition for claim and after getting the knowledge that maternal uncle of minors has already filed a petition before the Tribunal. He has further stated that the maternal uncle has kept interim award in the shape of FDR while paternal uncle of the minors has kept this amount in his running account. Further the paternal uncle of minors sold the joint house and purchased a new house out of that amount in his individual capacity and minors have not been shown as owners in that house.
7) Appellant Tarsem Lal Sharma has
