Summoning Accused A Serious Matter, Vexatious Proceedings Must Be Weeded Out: Calcutta High Court Quashes 'Counterblast' Complaint Lessee Mutating Own Name As Owner & Mortgaging Property Amounts To Denial Of Title Leading To Lease Forfeiture: Bombay High Court Tenant Has No Indefeasible Right To Insist On Separate Trial Of Maintainability Objections In Summary Rent Proceedings: Allahabad High Court Morality Must Be Kept Separate From Offence While Dealing With Individual's Liberty: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Gym Trainer In Rape Case Parking Truck On Highway At Night Without Indicators Is Gross Violation Of MV Act; Driver Solely Negligent For Accident: Gujarat High Court Injured Eyewitness Testimony Carries 'Built-In Guarantee' Of Presence: Jharkhand High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Lack Of Independent Witnesses Rajasthan High Court Initiates Suo Motu Contempt Against Litigant & Driver For Unauthorised Recording Of Court Proceedings On Mobile Phone General Apprehension Of Weapon Snatching By Maoists Not A Ground To Refuse Arms License Renewal To Law-Abiding Citizen: Telangana High Court Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Under Order VII Rule 11 If Authority To Sue Is A Disputed Fact; Undervaluation Is A Curable Defect: Uttarakhand High Court Vacancies Arising Under Repealed Rules Don't Confer Vested Right To Promotion; Candidate Governed By 'Rule In Force': Supreme Court No Need For Fresh Final Decree Application To Execute Auction If Preliminary Decree Already Determines Mode Of Division: Supreme Court Partition Suit: Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Staying Execution, Says Preliminary Decree Can Be Executable If It Determines Mode Of Partition 3-Judge Bench Ratio In 'K.A. Najeeb' Cannot Be Diluted By Smaller Benches To Deny UAPA Bail: Supreme Court 'Bail Is Rule, Jail Exception' Applies Even Under UAPA; Section 43-D(5) Is Subordinate To Article 21: Supreme Court Section 304-A IPC: Supreme Court Extends Benefit Of Probation Of Offenders Act To Driver, Orders Release After Admonition Upon Payment Of ₹5 Lakh Compensation Section 304-A IPC: Supreme Court Grants Probation To Driver, Says Conviction Under Probation Of Offenders Act Won't Affect Service Career Intermittent Daily Wage Earnings Not 'Gainful Employment' Under Section 17-B ID Act: Delhi High Court

Claim Petition by One Legal Representative Is Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rebukes Tribunal for Dismissing Compensation Plea on Ground of Non-joinder of Married Daughter

18 May 2025 5:43 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


“Non-impleadment of a party would not be a ground for rejection of the claim petition” — Punjab and Haryana High Court emphatically held that a compensation petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be dismissed merely because all legal representatives of the deceased are not impleaded.

Allowing the appeal filed by Salinder Singh, son of the deceased Pyara Singh, Justice Alka Sarin set aside the rejection of the claim by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, terming the approach “legally unsustainable” and “contrary to settled law.”

“A claim petition can be filed by all or any one of the legal representatives of the deceased”

The trial court had dismissed the claim solely on the ground that the married daughter of the deceased had not been made a party. Justice Sarin noted that such reasoning flies in the face of the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly Section 166(1)(c), which expressly allows:

“...an application for compensation arising out of an accident... may be made by... all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased...”

She quoted approvingly from the Supreme Court judgment in Janabai & Ors. vs. M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 (4) RCR (Civil) 85, where it was observed:

“If the daughters of the deceased have not been impleaded as claimants, it is immaterial… It is not really of any consequence as held by the High Court.”

The High Court underlined that the dismissal of the petition was unjustified when the other connected case related to the same accident had already resulted in a finding of liability against the insurance company.

“The impugned award passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained”

Noting that the Tribunal had completely failed to consider the merits of the claim, the High Court set aside the order and remanded the case:

“The matter is remanded to the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra for adjudication on merits in accordance with law.”

The Court also directed both parties to appear before the Tribunal on 20.05.2025 and emphasized that the petition should now be adjudicated expeditiously.

Date of Decision: 05.05.2025

Latest Legal News