Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Law Does Not Require That All The Legal Representatives Of A Deceased Should Be Impleaded In A Claim Petition: Punjab & Haryana HC Allows Appeal In Motor Accident Claim

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has allowed an appeal in a motor accident claim case, clarifying the scope and application of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appeal was filed by the widow and children of the deceased, against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad which had dismissed their claim on procedural grounds.

The tribunal had dismissed the compensation claim on the grounds of non-joinder of necessary parties, specifically the mother of the deceased. The appellants sought compensation following a fatal accident on March 20, 2004, involving the deceased, Angesh Kumar, who was hit by a negligently driven TATA Sumo.

Justice Sudeepti Sharma, addressing the primary issue of non-joinder of necessary parties, emphasized that the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly Section 166, does not necessitate the inclusion of all legal representatives as claimants or respondents in compensation claims arising from accidents. The Court highlighted that the tribunal had erred by applying the procedural stringency of civil trials to motor accident claims, which are essentially meant to provide quick relief to the victims’ families.

The Court took note of the eyewitness testimony and the police investigation reports, which corroborated that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of Raj Kamal, the driver of the TATA Sumo.

The decision to dismiss the claim based on the absence of the mother of the deceased was criticized. The Court referenced several judicial precedents underscoring that the non-joinder of some legal representatives does not invalidate a compensation claim, and that procedural flexibility is warranted to amend such claims.

Based on the Supreme Court’s guidelines in various precedents, the Court recalculated the compensation, taking into account the deceased’s earnings, future prospects, and personal expenses. The total compensation was set at Rs. 5,82,240 with an interest rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim till realization.

Decision of the Court:  The appeal was allowed, and the order of the Tribunal was set aside. The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the awarded compensation amount with interest within two months. The distribution of the compensation was specified among the appellants.

Date of Decision: March 22, 2024

SMT. KAUSHAL AND OTHERS v. RAJ KAMAL AND OTHERS

 

Similar News