IMPORTANT POINT
Legal representatives of a deceased can claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act without all representatives being joined in the petition.

JUDGMENT :

Sudeepti Sharma, J.

The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 22.04.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad, whereby the claim of appellant has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the claim petition are that on 20.03.2004 at about 1.15 a.m, Angesh Kumar was returning from his Company and going to his residence in village Ajronda on cycle. When he reached Neelam fly-over, TATA Sumo HR-38/HT-9590 came from behind i.e from the side of Neelam Chowk and hit Angesh Kumar from behind. Resultantly he suffered serious injuries. He was taken to B.K.Hospital, Faridabad from where he was referred to Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi, but due to serious condition, he was got admitted in Fortis Excorts Hospital, Faridabad. However, he succumbed to his injuries there in the evening. It was averred that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid TATA Sumo by Raj Kamal (respondent No.1) who was driving it at the time of accident. Angesh Kumar was plying his cycle on correct left side and it was hit from behind and, so, principle of res ipsa loquitur is attracted. F.I.R No. 99 dated 20.03.2004 was registered with police station Central Faridabad regarding the accident. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are owner and insurer respectively of the offending TATA Sumo Vehicle. On these averments, the claimants prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs.

3. Upon notice, the respondents appeared and denied the allegations of the claimants.

4. From the pleading of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of TATA Sumo HR-38/HT-9590 by Raj Kamal respondent No.1?OPP

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, how much and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPP

4. Whether the petitioners have no locus-standi and cause of action in the present petition? OPR

5. Whether respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy? If so to what effect? OPR3

6. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR

7. Relief.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contend that the Tribunal even after observing and determining the amount of compensation of Rs.3 lakhs to be payable, dismissed the claim petition only on the ground of non-joinder of mother of the deceased either as co-petitioner or as peroforma respondent. He further contends that under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, where death has resulted from the accident, the claim petition can be filed by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased and in the present case the claim petition was preferred by the widow, minor son and daughter of the deceased, who were dependent upon the deceased and had no source of income and the mother of the deceased was not dependant and was not interested in the claim. Therefore, only on this ground the petition of the appellants could not be rejected by the learned Tribunal. He further contends that without directing the claimant to implead the mother of the deceased as party in the claim petition and giving the claimants one opportunity to amend the claim petition and even after observing that the claimants have suffered huge loss by the death of the deceased only on the ground that mother is not impleaded as party (i.e the claimant or the respondent), the claim of the appellants was rejected.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent – Insurance Company vehemently argued on the lines of the award. He further submitted that the compensation has rightly been rejected and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record.

7. A perusal of the record shows that Krishan Kumar, Additional Ahlmad PW-2 brought file of the case pending against respondent No.1 relating to this accident and stated that charges under Sections 279 and