FAO No.2622 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2622 of 1996 Date of Decision. 03.01.2011 2. FAO No.2900 of 1996 Krishna Devi widow of late Kanshi Ram and another ......Appellants Versus Mahabir Singh son of Dalip Singh and others ......Respondents Present: None for the appellant. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana for respondent Nos.2 & 3. Mr. Sanjay Dhiman, Advocate for Mr. Sushil Saini, Advocate for respondent Nos.5 to 8. None for other respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the appellants is absent and the counsel for the respondents are present and ready. 2. The two appeals are at the instance of Krishna Devi and another, who are claimants in MACT Case no.15 of 1994, seeking for compensation for death of Kanshi Ram. Yet another person by name Parwati Devi claimed herself to be the wife of Kanshi Ram and she had independently filed a petition in MACT case No.17 of 1994. Both the cases along with another case were taken up and disposed of by the Tribunal at Ambala finding that Parwati Devi was a legal heir and Krishna Devi had not established herself to be the wife of the deceased FAO No.2622 of 1996 -2- Kanshi Ram and that Pritam Singh, who was one of the claimants was the son born to Krishna Devi through Kanshi Ram. The Tribunal found that Parwati Devi and the children, who had joined along with her in MACT No.17 of 1994 alone were to be treated as the legal representatives of the deceased Kanshi Ram and after determining a compensation for Rs.50,000/- on no fault basis, awarded the said sum to the claimants in MACT No.17 of 1994 namely Parwati and others. The appeals are filed by Krishna Devi against both the cases seeking for reversal of the finding as regards the status. 3. On the date when the case is posted, there is no representation for the appellant Krishna Devi in both the cases but the respondents are present. The cases are of the year 1996 and I do not find any justification for adjourning the case or merely dismissing them for default of appearance. The appeals are dismissed on the ground that admittedly she had been married to another person by name Rattan Chand and no proof at all had been adduced before the Tribunal that the marriage was dissolved. On the other hand, Parwati Devi admittedly was the wife of Kanshi Ram and the Tribunal had awarded the compensation determined by it only in favour of Parwati Devi and others. I do not think that it is even essential to go into the question of quantum, since I have found that the appellants have not established the status as legal representatives of the deceased Kanshi Ram. 4. The awards are confirmed and the appeals are dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 03, 2011 Pankaj*