2023:PHHC:054091

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

(i)

FAO-8657-2014 (O&M)

Jagwa Ram and others

...Appellants

VERSUS

Jogender and others

...Respondents

(ii)

FAO-10258-2014 (O&M)

Kitabo

...Appellant

VERSUS

Jogender and others

...Respondents

Date of Decision: April 18, 2023

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

Present:

Mr.Narender Kaajla Advocate

for the appellants (in both the appeals).

Mr.Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate

for respondent No.3-Insurance Company (in both the appeals).

****

ARCHANA PURI, J.

These two appeals emanate from common Award dated

14.08.2014 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, thereby,

granting compensation to Jagwa Ram, husband only, on account of death of

Vidya Devi and further denying any compensation to appellant-claimant

Kitabo, who allegedly sustained injuries, in the same accident.

FAO-8657-2014 relates to the claim petition filed by

VINEET GULATI

2023.04.20 17:50

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

Chandigarh

2023:PHHC:054091

FAO-8657-2014 and connected case

-2-

appellants-claimants Jagwa Ram and his sons, vis-a-vis, death of Vidya

Devi and married daughters, have been impleaded as respondents No.4 and

5, in the claim petition.

FAO-10258-2014 relates to the claim petition filed by

appellant-claimant Kitabo, thereby, asserting to have sustained injuries in

the same accident.

On appraisal of the evidence adduced, learned Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal had awarded compensation only to Jagwa Ram, husband,

vis-a-vis, death of Vidya Devi and dismissed the claim petition filed by

Kitabo.

So far as the fact of accident and imputation of rashness and

negligence, upon the driver, namely Jogender of offending Auto Three

wheeler bearing registration No.HR-61A-9027 is concerned, suffice to

consider the finding, so recorded by learned Tribunal, which have not been

challenged further, by the persons, so made liable.

The aforesaid two appeals have been filed, thereby, seeking

enhancement of the compensation, vis-a-vis, death of Vidya Devi and for

grant of compensation, vis-a-vis, injuries allegedly sustained by Kitabo,

who was accompanying, Vidya Devi, at the time of said accident.

So far as, FAO-8657-2014 is concerned, at the very outset, it is

pertinent to take note of the fact that learned Tribunal denied compensation

to the claimants, who are husband, major sons of the deceased Vidya Devi,

on account of 'loss of dependence', as it was observed that they (together

with married daughters of the deceased), being capable of earning, thus,

VINEET GULATI

2023.04.20 17:50

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

Chandigarh

2023:PHHC:054091

FAO-8657-2014 and connected case

-3-

cannot be said to be dependent upon deceased Vidya Devi. However,

claimant No.1 Jagwa Ram, husband of the deceased, was granted

compensation to the extent of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and last

rights, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium, being husband and

Rs.5,000/- was granted, towards loss of estate. In total, a sum of

Rs.50,000/- was granted to claimant No.1-Jagwa Ram.

However, such 'work upon' by learned Tribunal, thereby,

denying compensation, on the count of 'loss of dependence' is palpably

wrong. Very true, as evident from the evidence adduced, children of Vidya

Devi, are grown up sons and daughters of the deceased, but however, the

fact remains that they are the legal representatives of the deceased.

At this juncture, it is important to make reference to the

decision rendered in National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender

(2020) 11 SCC 356, wherein, a claim petition was filed by major married

and earning sons of the deceased mother and the Hon'ble Supreme Court

held as follows:-

“12. The legal representatives of the deceased could move

application for compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section

166 (1). The major married son who is also earning and not