Delhi High Court
Jitender Kumar & Ors vs Oriental Insurance Co Pvt Ltd & Ors on 18 April, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 18th April, 2012
+ CM (M) 1244/2009
JITENDER KUMAR & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Kusumlata Sharma, Adv.
versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO PVT LTD & ORS.. Respondent
Through Ms. S. Janani, Advocate for the
Respondent No.2 to 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Petitioners impugn an order dated 08.10.2009 whereby the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) declined
to grant any compensation to the Petitioners out of the
compensation awarded to Smt. Sumitra Devi, the Petitioners'
mother (since deceased).
2. A Claim Petition being Suit No.379/1997 was filed by
Respondents No.2 to 4 and one by Smt. Sumitra Devi for the
death of Ashok Kumar. Said Ashok Kumar was the husband of
Respondent No.2 and the father of Respondents No.3 and 4. He
was the son of Late Sumitra Devi, who was the Petitioner No.4
in the original Claim Petition. By a judgment dated 18.08.2000
a compensation of `6,44,000/- was awarded in favour of the
Claimants. While apportioning the amount of compensation a
sum of `50,000/- was awarded in favour of Smt. Sumitra Devi
(now deceased). Respondents No.2 to 4 and said Smt. Sumitra
Devi preferred an Appeal being FAO No.465/2000 for
enhancement of compensation which came to be decided by this
Court by order dated 01.07.2008. The compensation was
enhanced from `6,44,000/- to `8,02,000/-. Thus, there was
enhancement of `1,58,000/-. The matter was remitted back to
the Claims Tribunal for the apportionment of the enhanced
compensation in favour of the LRs of deceased Ashok Kumar.
At that time, it transpired that Smt. Sumitra Devi had in fact
expired during the pendency of the Appeal in this Court. The
said fact was, however, not brought to the notice of the Court.
The contention was raised by the Petitioners before the Claims
Tribunal for the payment of compensation of `50,000/- along
with proportionate interest and one-fourth share out of the
enhanced compensation of `1,58,000/- to each of the legal
heirs. In the impugned order, it was recorded that although the
Petitioners (herein) had no objection if the amount of `50,000/-
was received by the deceased's widow (Respondent No.2
herein) yet the Petitioners wanted that the share of the enhanced
compensation must come to their hands.
3. In this Petition, the record of the no objection by the Petitioners
for payment of the compensation of `50,000/- is disputed.
Otherwise also, it does not stand to reason that the Petitioners
would have no objection for payment of `50,000/- to the widow
along with interest from the date of filing of the Petitioner till
the date of its deposit with the Claims Tribunal and they would
contest for the share in the sum of ` 1,58,000/-.
4. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (the Act) empowers
legal representatives of the deceased who dies in a motor
accident to file an application for grant of compensation against
the tortfeasor. The Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Courts grant the compensation on
account of the death of a person to the legal representatives as
per their financial dependency and the compensation under non-
pecuniary heads is also awarded.
5. For instance, a person may die leaving behind a widow and
three children. One of the children may be self-sufficient
having independent income. No compensation would be
awarded to the said child towards the loss of dependency,
although he would be a legal heir and a legal representative
representing the estate of the deceased.
6. The Petitioners being the deceased's brother and who were not
a party to the original Claim Petition were not entitled to any
compensation, are not claiming any compensation on account of
loss of financial dependency. Their contention, however, is that
they must get the share in the compensation which was awarded
by the Claims Tribunal by the judgment dated 18.08.2000 and
the enhanced compensation granted by the High Court by order
dated 01.07.2008. As far as the amount awarded to Smt.
Sumitra Devi (the deceased) before her death is concerned, the
said amount would devolve on her legal heirs (being estate of
Sumita Devi). However, Smt. Sumitra Devi died during the
pendency of the Appeal and as her financial dependency came
to an end, the Claims Tribunal was competent to apportion the
compensation amongst the legal representatives of deceased
Ashok Kumar as per their financial dependency. Smt. Sumitra
Devi having died before the decision of the Appeal, the
Petitioners are not entitled to any compensation out of the
enhanced compensation.
7. The deceased Sumitra Devi was survived by two sons, the
Petitioners herein, one daughter Smt. Baby @ Amarjeet and the
legal heirs of his pre-deceased son Ashok Kumar (Respondents
No.2 to 4 herein). Said Baby had filed a no objection in the
shape of an Affidavit for the payment of her share on account of
being a legal heir of Smt. Sumitra Devi in favour of Smt. Neeru
Kumar (Respondent No.2, the deceased Ashok Kumar's
widow). Therefore, out of the four shares, the Petitioners are
entitled to only two shares. Thus, from the awarded sum of
`50,000/- to Smt. Sumitra Devi (the deceased), the Petitioners
would be entitled to a compensation of `25,000/- only along
with proportionate interest.
8. The impugned order is set aside and the Petition is allowed in
above terms.
9. The Claims Tribunal is directed to release the amount of
`25,000/- i.e. `12,500/- each to the two Petitioners along with
proportionate interest immediately.
10. Copy of the order be sent to the Claims Tribunal for
compliance.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 18, 2012
vk
