IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2368 of 2009 Date of decision: 20th July, 2010 Paramjit Singh and others … Petitioners Versus Gurnam Singh and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Punia, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Rahul Rampal, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Rajesh K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3. None for respondent No.4. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Bhajan Singh, father of the petitioners, met with an accident on 8th December, 1996, as a result of which Bhajan Singh and his wife died at the spot. Bhajan Singh was survived by two sons and two daughters. Two separate claim petitions were instituted, one by his son Ram Singh and the other by the petitioners (two daughters and one son). The claim petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed in default, whereas the one filed by Ram Singh continued. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Tribunal’), vide award dated 7th June, 2003, held Ram Singh to be entitled to compensation. The following portion of the award is required to be noticed: “It is the statement made by petitioner Ram Singh that his father was earning Rs.3300/- per month. Taking the Civil Revision No.2368 of 2009 earning of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per month, 1/3rd of the same is deducted for his personal expenses thereby leaving a sum of Rs.2000/- for the contribution to be made in joint family which also included petitioner. The petitioner has got one brother and two sisters i.e. respondents No.4 to 6 and in that way the expenditure to be incurred upon the petitioner would come out to Rs.500/-. The annual dependency of the petitioner would come out to Rs.6000/-. As per the certified copy of the post-mortem Ex.PA of the deceased he was aged 58 years and therefore, as per the second schedule of the Act, a multiplier of ‘8’ is to be applied. This would work out the compensation to Rs.48,000/-. However, the same cannot fall below minimum compensation payable u/s 140 of the Act. In addition to the said amount of the compensation, petitioner shall also be entitled to the following general expenses: Funeral expenses : Rs.2000-00 Loss of consortium : Rs.5000-00 Loss of estate : Rs.2500-00 ----------------- Rs.9500-00 ----------------- Total amount of the compensation would come out to Rs.59,500/-.” A perusal of the above said portion of the award reveals that having assessed the income of Bhajan Singh at Rs.3000/- per month, only the dependency of Ram Singh was determined and the rights of the petitioners were not determined as to how much compensation they are entitled to. Against the dismissal of their claim petition in default, petitioners filed an F.A.O. No.3454 of 2003, which was disposed of on September 4, 2003 and the following order was passed: “Present: Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants admits that Paramjit Singh (Appellant herein) had also filed a separate 2 Civil Revision No.2368 of 2009 claim petition, which was earlier pending before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, has now been dismissed in default. No process has been taken to revive the said petition. We are of the view that the appellants before us did not contest the proceedings before the Tribunal before filing the present appeal. We, however, make it clear that it will be open to the appellant herein to take all issues which are open to him in the application which was or is before the Tribunal. Dismissed in the above terms. Sd/- H.S. Bedi September 4, 2003 Judge Sd/- Satish Kumar Mittal Judge” In F.A.O. No.3454 of 2003, it was stated that a prayer was also made that the compensation given to Ram Singh be apportioned in favour of the petitioners also. In terms of order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on September 4, 2003 (reproduced above), the petitioners filed an application before the Tribunal for restoration of the claim petition dismissed in default on 21st August, 2000. After hearing counsel for the parties, the Tribunal had restored the claim petition and observed as under: “8. … … There is no dispute with regard to ratio of law settled in 2004-ACJ-1377 Supra that in case decree/award is passed in favour of one legal representative may enure to the benefit of others. On the basis of this judgment it is not the Insurance Company/driver/owner who will be put to give the claim time and again. In case the application of the applicants is restored, they will have right to apportion their share which is received by petitioner/ respondent No.4 Ram Singh. Therefore, for the adjudication of the claim of the applicants, their claim petition is required to be restored.” 3 Civil Revision No.2368 of 2009 This part of the judgment is being assailed before this Court. It is stated that the petitioners cannot be made to apportion the share, which was received by the respondent-Ram Singh, as while awarding the compensation to Ram Singh only his dependency was determined and taken into consideration. I have heard counsel for the parties. It is apparent that while deciding the claim petition preferred by Ram Singh, brother of the petitioners, the dependency and entitlement of the petitioners was not determined by the Tribunal in award (Annexure P-4). Therefore both, the petitioners and the respondents, have the right to adduce evidence to project their respective case and seek decision on merits qua the claim lodged by the petitioners, their entitlement and determination of the amount of compensation. Counsel for the parties undertake that respective parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 23rd August, 2010. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 20, 2010 rps 4