Habeas Corpus Petition Not Maintainable To Trace An Absconding Accused Evading Arrest: Allahabad High Court Section 33(2)(b) ID Act: Industrial Tribunal Cannot Reject Approval For Dismissing Corrupt Employee Over Minor Deficit In One Month's Wages, Holds Bombay High Court Reserved Category Candidate Cannot Claim Unreserved Vacancy Without Securing Higher Marks Than General Cut-Off: Calcutta High Court Condition Restricting Use Of CENVAT Credit For Duty Payment During Default Period Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court Domestic Incident Report Cannot Supersede Substantive Complaint Under DV Act; Summons Can't Be Refused Solely Due To Omissions In DIR: Delhi High Court Defence Evidence Not Inherently Inferior To Prosecution Evidence, Accused Need Not Prove Alibi To The Hilt: Allahabad High Court Acquits 80-Year-Old In POCSO Case Writ Petition Not Maintainable To Restrain Trade Union Strike; Employer Can Approach Industrial Tribunal Under IR Code During Conciliation: Karnataka High Court Army Personnel Exposed To Radiation During Service Entitled To Disability Pension For Leukemia: Kerala High Court Failure To Give Opportunity To Accused To Explain Disproportionate Assets Is Fatal To Prosecution: Madras High Court Acquits Customs Officer Family Court Can Grant Maintenance To Major Unmarried Daughter Even If Application Filed Under Section 125 CrPC: Madhya Pradesh High Court Framing Charges Solely On Oral Testimony Despite Contradictory Medical Evidence Impermissible Without Recorded Reasons: Punjab & Haryana High Court Vehicle Seized For Alleged Cattle Cruelty Can't Be Left To Rot; Prima Facie Ownership Established Via Registration & Insurance Docs: Orissa High Court Labeling Perennial Work As 'Outsourced' To Deny Regularization Is Unconstitutional; State Can't Act Like Private Employer: Telangana High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Merely Required To Establish 'Probable Defence' To Shift Burden Of Proof Onto Complainant: Madras High Court Protests Or Being Branded A 'Traitor' Do Not Establish Threat To Life Ipso Facto: Punjab & Haryana High Court On Security Cover

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