Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

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