Punjab-Haryana High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. vs Ram Rattan And Anr. on 31 August, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1994ACJ1072, (1993)105PLR276
JUDGMENT Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
1. This appeal has been jointly filed by the Insurance Company and the owner of the offending vehicle on whom the liability to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 19,200/- with 10% P.A. interest from the date of claim petition, was fastened.
2. In this case, the only question which has cropped up for determination is whether claimant Ram Rattan is entitled to claim compensation on account of the death of his mother's sister who died in a vehicular accident on 22-8-1982.
3. This case of the claimant was that he was the son of the sister of the deceased who had executed a will in his favour and that she was earning Rs.600/- per month.
4. The challenge to the award is that the claimant being nephew is not entitled to compensation especially when he was not dependent on the deceased.
5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents contends that the claimant being legal representative of the deceased, is entitled to claim compensation.
6. I have perused the paper book.
7. Claimant Ram Rattan has nowhere stated in the claim application or while appearing as a witness that he was dependent upon the deceased or that she was giving any money to him for his maintenance. The claimant has not been able to show that on account of the death of his mother's sister he had suffered any pecuniary loss. The Tribunal had awarded compensation to the claimant on the basis of will which is alleged to have been executed by the deceased in favour of the claimant.
8. In Lachhman Singh and Ors. v. Giirmit Kaur and Ors., (1979) P.L.R.1 it was held that the compensation to be assessed is the pecuniary loss caused to the dependents by the death of the person concerned and no compensation is to be assessed on any extraneous consideration. In this very judgment it was further held that for the purpose of calculating the just compensation, annual dependency of the dependents should be determined in terms of the annual loss accruing to them due to the abrupt termination of life. As mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, Ram Rattan Claimant at no stage stated that he was dependent upon the income of the deceased and on account of her death he has suffered pecuniary loss.
9. In Neena Kapur and Ors v. Lakha Singh and ors. 1984 A.C.J. 54, this Court had taken the view that the mother and step father of the deceased were not dependent upon the deceased and therefore not entitled to compensation. Similarly, in Parkash Chand and Ors. v. Pal Singh and Ors., (1981) 87 P.L.R. 538 it was held that the brother as legal representative was entitled to lay claim under Section 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act to the loss to the estate of the deceased, The Court has gone even to the extent of saying that father's brother is not entitled to any compensation for the death of his nephew.
10. In view of the settled law, I am of the view that claimant Ram Rattan being not dependent upon the deceased was not entitled to the compensation. The claimant at the best can inherit estate of the deceased and not lay claim to compensation under Motor Vehicles Act.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, dated 4.9.1984 is quashed, No order as to costs.