Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar

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