AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appeal is of the year 2008.
Legal heirs of the deceased claimant who filed an application before the Tribunal to bring them on record as legal representatives of the
deceased claimant are before this Court consequent to the Tribunal dismissing their application for impleadment.
The injured-claimant-Sohan Lal s/o Kair Chand aged 45 years at the time of filing of the claim petitioner suffered injuries in the accident and
filed claim for compensation. Pending adjudication, interim award was passed in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- and that was paid over to the claimant
and pending the claim he died. The legal heirs are wife-Bishno Devi aged 50 years, sons-Ram Pal aged 32 years; Parshotam Lal aged 17 years,
Shailander aged 15 year; and a daughter-Sudesh Devi-aged 28 years. Their application apparently was very vague and on objection by the
counsel for Insurance Company, the application was rejected by the Tribunal stating that even in a case of plea of Loss of Estate, some pleadings
should be there. Since the application was filed in vague manner, the Tribunal rejected it. Aggrieved therewith the present appeal has been filed.
Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon a decision rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in case titled as
Shiwando Prabhakar and others v. Sukhwinder Singh and others, reported in 2002 ACJ 847 : (2002 AIHC 306 (P&H)) paragraph 4 of which
reads as under:
When a person receives injuries in an accident, they can result in various consequences, such as (i) loss of actual income; (ii) expenditure
incurred; (iii) future loss of income; (iv) non-pecuniary amount under the head of pain and suffering. These area few illustrations. In the first two
cases, the injured spends for the treatment, for the persons helping him when he is incapacitated. He suffers loss of actual income because he is not
able to work. Similar is the case when he has to spend the leave from the leave balance which he otherwise would have encased or otherwise
voluntarily enjoyed. This is certainly a loss to the estate and the heirs of the deceased who are affected by the loss to the estate can certainly pursue
the claim petition for the same"".
It is pleaded that only if the legal heirs are brought on record, then the legal heirs will be able to establish that they will be entitled to claim on
account of loss of estate on consequent death of the claimant. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a proceedings under the Act should not be
thrown out on technicalities such as vagueness. Learned Senior counsel for the respondents however, supported the view of the Tribunal.
The question is whether the appellant-legal representatives can be non-suited merely on the ground that they have not specifically pleaded the
details of loss of estate etc. The answer is No. Legal Heirs as a matter of Rule are entitled to participate in the proceedings and establish plea for
compensation for loss of estate etc. As to what will be the actual amount of compensation is a matter for evidence. Some of the heads on which
legal heirs can seek compensation is expenditure incurred on account of injuries suffered by injured-claimant, attendant charges, that is to say the
sum incurred by the attendant in taking care of the injured claimant, the expenses that they have incurred on medical treatment including the
transportation and other miscellaneous expenses. All this are matters which could be decided only on evidence.
In this view of the matter, Tribunal was not correct in dismissing the application at the threshold. Hence the impugned judgment is set aside and
the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to take up the application filed for impleading the legal heirs. The Tribunal will thereafter decide the
claim on merits.
Appeal is allowed as above. Appeal allowed.