PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
D.K.Mahajan, J.
Sarla Devi And Others
Versus
Sharfi Devi Aggarwal And Others
F.A.O. No. 82 of 1961,
Decided On : OCTOBER 17, 1967
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTION 110(B) - COMPENSATION - AWARD - ENHANCEMENT - CLAIM BY WIDOW AND CHILDREN OF DECEASED - TRIBUNAL AWARDING COMPENSATION TO CHILDREN - NO COMPENSATION TO WIDOW - APPEAL BY WIDOW AND CHILDREN - CROSS-OBJECTIONS BY OWNER OF VEHICLE - HELD, TRIBUNAL RIGHT IN REJECTING CLAIM OF WIDOW - AWARD OF COMPENSATION TO CHILDREN PROPER - APPEAL AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Sat Parkash, was seriously injured in a truck accident and died as a result of his injuries. His widow and children filed a claim for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the children but rejected the widow's claim on the ground that she had come into possession of assets belonging to the deceased. The widow and children appealed the decision, and the owner of the vehicle filed cross-objections.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Tribunal was right in rejecting the widow's claim for compensation as she had come into possession of assets belonging to the deceased. The court also held that the award of compensation to the children was proper and did not call for any enhancement.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal was right in rejecting the widow's claim for compensation? 2. Whether the award of compensation to the children was proper?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Tribunal was right in rejecting the widow's claim for compensation as she had come into possession of assets belonging to the deceased. 2. The award of compensation to the children was proper and did not call for any enhancement.
Final Decision: The appeal and cross-objections were dismissed.
1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated the 13th March, 1961. By this award, a sum of Rs. 16,560/- with costs was awarded to the children of the deceased. The Tribunal has awarded compensation to the children on the basis that each of the minor child is entitled to Rs. 30/- per mensem till he attains the age of majority and taking into account the ages of the children and the corresponding age of majority, the compensation for each one of them has been fixed as under :
Compensation fixed Narinder Kumar, aged 13 years. Rs. 1,800/- Sudesh Kumar, aged 9 years. Rs. 3,240/- Rakesh Kumar, aged 7 years. Rs. 3,960/- Romesh Kumar, aged 4 years. Rs. 5,040/- Kumari Asha Rani, aged 11 years. Rs. 2,520/- Thus the total compensation payable comes to Rs. 16,560/- Against this award the present appeal has been preferred by the widow of the deceased who has not been awarded any compensation and by the children of the deceased. The widow claims compensation for herself and on behalf of the children ; the claim is that the compensation fixed is low. The owner of the motor vehicle has preferred cross-objections. The decree was also passed against the driver of the motor vehicle. But there is neither any appeal by him nor any cross-objections.
2. The accident took place on the 13th of June, 1960. Mr. Sat Parkash deceased, husband of Mrs. Sarla Devi and the father of the children who have been allowed compensation, was seriously injured in a truck in which he was travelling. The truck (No. PNE-8125) was driven by Gulzar Singh. It is stated that the driver fell asleep with the result that the truck hit a tree and as a consequence thereof the deceased was thrown out of the vehicle and sustained serious injuries as a result of which he died. Sat Parkash was the owner of the goods which were being carried by the truck. In the claim application filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by the widow of the deceased and the children, compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- was claimed. The respondent Shrimati Sharfi Devi, owner of the truck, was given registered notice to appear on 5th October, 1960. But she refused to accept the registered notice and it was returned with the remarks of the postman "Maktuble Lene se Ankari hai". (Addressee has refused to take it) As she refused to take notice, ex-parte proceedings were taken against her on the 5th October, 1960. The claim was contested by the insurance company. The company also made an application for permission to defend the claim in the name of the insured. However, this application was rejected by a separate order dated the 21st October, 1960. The Tribunal, however, in the interest of justice cross-examined the witnesses ; so also the counsel for the company. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent act of the driver. The Tribunal has negatived the claim of the widow on the ground that she has come into possession of assets to the tune of Rs. 32,000/- which belonged to the deceased and on which the interest, which will accrue, comes to Rs. 1,920/-. According to the Tribunal, this was sufficient provision for the widow. The Tribunal, however, assessed that each of the children was entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 30/- per mensem till majority and on that basis allowed a sum of Rs. 16,560/- to the children of the deceased. As already said this appeal is by the widow of the deceased and the children and the claim in appeal is for enhancement of the compensation. The owner of the vehicle Mrs. Sharfi Devi has filed cross-objections.
3. I will first dispose of the cross- objections. Mr. Roop Chand, the learned counsel for the respondent, Sharfi Devi, has argued that she was not served with a notice of the proceedings that were taken on the claim application of the claimants. According to the learned counsel, service by registered post is no service, it is argued that personal s
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.