2023:PHHC:077161 Page 1 of 7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

227

FAO-2466-2019 (O&M)

Date of decision: 26.05.2023

Satta & Others

...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Sukhdeep Singh & Others

...Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:-

Mr. Ashok K. Sharma (Bhana), Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. Vijay Kumar Garg, Advocate

for respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-7930-CII-2019

This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act,

1963 seeking condonation of delay of 345 days in filing the appeal.

No ground is made out to condone such inordinate

delay of 345 days in filing the appeal.

Present application accordingly stands dismissed.

MAIN APPEAL

Mr. Vijay Kumar Garg, Advocate appears on behalf of

respondent No.3 and files Vakalatnama which is taken on record.

2.

Present appeal has been filed by Legal Representatives

of claimant-Tulsi against composite Award dated 24.11.2017 passed by

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind (hereinafter referred to as “the

learned Tribunal”) whereby claimants’ MACT Case No.18 of 2016 was

dismissed.

SUNENA

2023.06.02 11:24

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

2023:PHHC:077161 Page 2 of 7

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the said claim petition

was filed by the sole claimant – Tulsi, on account of death of his son

deceased-Jagdish in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on

28.11.2015. However, during pendency of the appeal, Tulsi had expired

and therefore, his LRs who are brothers and sisters of deceased-Jagdish

maintained the claim petition/have filed the present appeal.

4.

Admittedly, appellant No.1 Satta is 56 years old,

appellant No.2 Beda is 51 years old, appellant No.3 Oma is 59 years old,

all being sons of Tulsi/brothers of the deceased Jagdish. Appellant No.4

Rajo is 64 years old, appellant No.5 Meena is 41 years old and appellant

No.6 Kailasho is 53 years old all of whom are daughters of claimant-

Tulsi/sisters of deceased-Jagdish, and all of whom are married and

happily settled in their respective matrimonial homes.

5.

Learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and

evidence adduced before it concluded that the accident in question had

taken place on 28.11.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of truck

bearing registration No.RJ-04GA-4368 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

offending vehicle’) being driven by respondent No.1, owned by

respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. However, learned

Tribunal held that the claimants were not entitled to any compensation

on account of death of Jagdish in the said accident having been “not

found dependent upon income of the deceased”.

SUNENA

2023.06.02 11:24

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

2023:PHHC:077161 Page 3 of 7

6.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants

that the learned Tribunal was in error in not awarding compensation to

the appellants for the above said reasoning as appellants being brothers

and sisters of the deceased were entitled to compensation.

7.

No other argument has been raised by learned counsel

for the appellants.

8.

Heard.

9.

Perusal of the record of the case reveals that learned

Tribunal held that age of the deceased was 32 years on date of accident.

Learned Tribunal found that the claimant had failed to prove any income

of the deceased. Learned Tribunal further found that as per evidence of

PW4, none of the siblings of the deceased/appellants before this Court,

were dependent upon income of the deceased. Learned Tribunal took

notional income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month and calculated

total dependency to be Rs.8,06,400/-. However, as dependency of the

appellants could not be proven on record, accordingly, learned Tribunal

held them not entitled to any compensation. In this rega