Present Mr. D.S.Nirban Advocate Vs. Ramsingh and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1093916
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnOct-07-2013
AppellantPresent Mr. D.S.Nirban Advocate
RespondentRamsingh and Others
Excerpt:
f.a.o.no.4374 of 2009 1 .in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh f.a.o.no.4374 of 2009 [o&m].date of decision: october 7th, 2013 ami lal ...appellant versus ramsingh and others ...respondents coram : hon'ble mr.justice vijender singh malik1whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. 2.whether to be referred to the reporters or not?. 3.whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. present mr.d.s.nirban, advocate, for the appellant. mr.rajesh k. sharma, advocate, for respondent no.3-insurance company. vijender singh malik, j. on the death of jitender in a roadside accident that took place on 2.3.2007, two claim petitions have been brought, one by the appellant, ami lal claiming himself to be the maternal grand uncle of the deceased jitender and the other by om parkash, father of the deceased, smt. anju yadav his step mother and his minor brother dipanshu yadav. disposing of both the claim petitions vide common award dated 25.5.2009, learned motor accidents claims tribunal, narnaul (for short, "the tribunal") allowed the claim petition brought by om parkash in a sum of ` 2,70,000/- and held anju yadav and dipanshu yadav to be not entitled to any compensation. the claim petition of ami lal was, prakash som 2013.10.10 14:11 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document f.a.o.no.4374 of 2009 2 .however, dismissed holding that he is not entitled to any compensation on the death of jitender. now, aforesaid ami lal has filed this appeal challenging the award in question on the aforesaid point. learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant is the maternal grand uncle of the deceased with whom the deceased was living after the death of his mother. according to him, his father, om parkash married again and he was not treated well by his step-mother and he started living with the appellant. according to him, compensation had been allowed in favour of om parkash and no amount of the same has been made payable to the appellant, although, the appellant has been dependent upon the deceased. learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the concept of legal representative is there in section 166 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 and a legal representative is entitled to maintain a claim petition. according to him, the appellant is the legal representative of the deceased. in support of his submission, he has cited two decisions, one of hon`ble supreme court of india in gujarat state road transport corpn., ahmedabad versus ramanbhai prabhatbhai and another 1987 acj561and the other, a decision of high court of madhya pradesh at jabalpur in state of madhya pradesh through the manager, government milk scheme, seoni and others versus madhukar and others 1993 acj116 learned counsel for respondent no.3 has submitted, on the other hand, that father had been the legal heir of the deceased and the claim petition of the father, om parkash, has been allowed and the appellant being maternal grand uncle of the deceased, did not fall in any prakash som 2013.10.10 14:11 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document f.a.o.no.4374 of 2009 3 .of the categories of the legal heirs.the appellant is not even the maternal grand father of the deceased who could fall in class ii entry viii contained in the schedule appended to the hindu succession act, 1956. even if he would have been maternal grand father, he would have been excluded by the father who was class ii heir in entry no.(i).the decisions in the above cited cases in no manner help the appellant because the appellant is not even a legal representative of the deceased. he cannot share the compensation with the father of the deceased. for these reasons, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. (vijender singh malik) judge october 7th, 2013 som prakash som 2013.10.10 14:11 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

F.A.O.No.4374 of 2009 1 .IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No.4374 of 2009 [O&M].Date of Decision: October 7th, 2013 Ami Lal ...Appellant Versus Ramsingh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK1Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.

2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?.

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

Present Mr.D.S.Nirban, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr.Rajesh K.

Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

On the death of Jitender in a roadside accident that took place on 2.3.2007, two claim petitions have been brought, one by the appellant, Ami Lal claiming himself to be the maternal grand uncle of the deceased Jitender and the other by Om Parkash, father of the deceased, Smt.

Anju Yadav his step mother and his minor brother Dipanshu Yadav.

Disposing of both the claim petitions vide common award dated 25.5.2009, learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (for short, "the Tribunal") allowed the claim petition brought by Om Parkash in a sum of ` 2,70,000/- and held Anju Yadav and Dipanshu Yadav to be not entitled to any compensation.

The claim petition of Ami Lal was, Prakash Som 2013.10.10 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document F.A.O.No.4374 of 2009 2 .however, dismissed holding that he is not entitled to any compensation on the death of Jitender.

Now, aforesaid Ami Lal has filed this appeal challenging the award in question on the aforesaid point.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant is the maternal grand uncle of the deceased with whom the deceased was living after the death of his mother.

According to him, his father, Om Parkash married again and he was not treated well by his step-mother and he started living with the appellant.

According to him, compensation had been allowed in favour of Om Parkash and no amount of the same has been made payable to the appellant, although, the appellant has been dependent upon the deceased.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the concept of legal representative is there in section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and a legal representative is entitled to maintain a claim petition.

According to him, the appellant is the legal representative of the deceased.

In support of his submission, he has cited two decisions, one of Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn., Ahmedabad versus Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another 1987 ACJ561and the other, a decision of High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in State of Madhya Pradesh through the Manager, Government Milk Scheme, Seoni and others versus Madhukar and others 1993 ACJ116 Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has submitted, on the other hand, that father had been the legal heir of the deceased and the claim petition of the father, Om Parkash, has been allowed and the appellant being maternal grand uncle of the deceased, did not fall in any Prakash Som 2013.10.10 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document F.A.O.No.4374 of 2009 3 .of the categories of the legal heiRs.The appellant is not even the maternal grand father of the deceased who could fall in class II entry VIII contained in the schedule appended to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Even if he would have been maternal grand father, he would have been excluded by the father who was class II heir in entry No.(I).The decisions in the above cited cases in no manner help the appellant because the appellant is not even a legal representative of the deceased.

He cannot share the compensation with the father of the deceased.

For these reasons, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE October 7th, 2013 som Prakash Som 2013.10.10 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document