The absence of one legal representative does not render a claim petition non-maintainable under Section 166 of the Act.

JUDGMENT

Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral) - The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the award dated 23.08.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (in short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby an amount of Rs.11,17,800/- has been awarded as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on account of death of Gurdeep Singh.

2. For the purpose of the present appeal, the parties would be referred to as they were described in the original claim petition filed before the Tribunal.

3. The sole ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that, undipustedly, the deceased-Gurdeep Singh was married and having one son and two daughters besides the widow and the mother. However, the widow of the deceased was not made as party to the claim petition. Learned counsel has further submitted that since all the legal representatives of the deceased were not made parties, therefore, the claim petition itself was not maintainable. Hence the award deserves to be set aside altogether. Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Kaushalya Devi and another Vs. Mohan Lal and others, 1985 ACJ 514 to buttress his arguments.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 4 has submitted that the factum qua the wife of the deceased was not concealed by them, rather, it was duly brought on record. The same has duly been considered by the Tribunal. Only after considering the entire aspect, the compensation has been awarded only in favour of the claimants, who are the children and the mother of the deceased. Learned counsel has further submitted that even if all the legal representatives are not joined as a party, that could be not a ground for non-suiting the claimants, who have come forward to raise the claim. The wife of the deceased was free to come forward to raise the claim, if at all she was interested. Even respondentInsurance Company was not precluded from making a prayer before the Tribunal for bringing the said widow as a party-respondent. The said widow had re-married and had deserted the deceased before his death. There is no illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and pursued the case file, as well as the provisions of the Act, this Court does not find any substance in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.

6. The main argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the petition itself was not maintainable; in the absence of the wife of the deceased being impleaded as claimant or as respondent to the claim petition. However, this is not the mandate of the Act. Filing of a claim petition is dealt with by Section 166 of the Act, which is reproduced herein-under:-

'166. Application for compensation.- (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made-

(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or

(b) by the owner of the property; or

(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or

(d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be.

Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application.

[Provided further that where a person accepts compensation under section 164 in accordance with the procedure provided under section 149, his claims petition before the Claims Tribunal shall lapse.]

[(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction o