F.A.O.NO. 2755 OF 1998 and F.A.O.NO. 2566 OF 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 2755 OF 1998 Date of decision:5th October, 2010 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Opposite Madhy Cineam Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar through its Regional Manager. .......Appellant Versus Bimal Rani and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO. 2566 OF 1998 Bimla Rani and another .......Appellants Versus Som Nath and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. S.P.Singh, Advocate for Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate and Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate, for the claimants. Mr. Gautam Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. N.K.Khosla, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. Mr. S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate for the owner and driver. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. These two appeals arise out the same accident. FAO No. F.A.O.NO. 2755 OF 1998 and F.A.O.NO. 2566 OF 1998 -2- 2566 of 1998 is by the insurance company denying the liability to pay the sum as determined by the Tribunal and FAO NO. 2755 of 1998 is at the instance of persons claiming to be legal representatives of the deceased. 2. At the trial, it was proved at the instance of the insurer that the first claimant was the widow of the deceased brother and she was claiming pension as such widow of the deceased brother Maru Ram. Voter card had also produced to show that she was described only as a widow of Maru Ram and the second claimant was also the son of Maru Ram. The claimant gave evidence to the effect that she was married to Mukhtiar Ram after the death of Maru Ram as per custom. The Tribunal did not believe the same and dismissed her claim, which awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the second claimants recognising his status as the deceased brother's son as a heir at law and that he was entitled to compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant in the appeal would contend with reference to an additional document which he has filed to show that in ration card she has been shown as the widow of Mukhtiar Ram deceased. I cannot admit this document in evidence for providing the status as a wife. If it was an admitted fact that she continues till date to receive pension as the wife of Maru Ram then her plea that she was remarried to her deceased husband's brother cannot be accepted. The best proof of denying the marriage has come F.A.O.NO. 2755 OF 1998 and F.A.O.NO. 2566 OF 1998 -3- through an admitted document namely continued drawing pension as a widow of Mukhtiar Ram. The counsel for the appellant seeks for permission to prove the additional document, by a remand of the case. A remand will only give scope for perjury and I therefore, decline the plea of the learned counsel seeking for permission to let in appropriate evidence to prove her marriage. 4. The appeal i.e. FAO NO. 2566 of 1998 filed by her is therefore, dismissed. 5. The appeal by the Insurance Company is to the effect that the claim by the second claimant was only in the capacity of a son and if he had not been shown to be dependent, he could not have been granted compensation as a brother's son. In the absence of proof of existence of any class I heir, a right of brother's son as a heir to claim compensation for the death cannot be denied. Determination of extent of dependency is only one of the aspects for finding the entitlement. The expression used under Sections 165, 166 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is the “Legal Representative,” this term is larger than even the word “legal heir”. The claim by such a legal heir cannot be excluded under the scheme of the Act. The claim had been made by him has capacity as a son and if it was not proved, I do not think the case must fall only on that basis, if as a brother's son, he was still the only heir. Parties are illiterate litigants, advised by their counsel and if appropriate facts were not elicited or the proper facts had not been disclosed originally but the facts proved showed an F.A.O.NO. 2755 OF 1998 and F.A.O.NO. 2566 OF 1998 -4- entitlement, the purpose of the legislation being welfare driven. I will accommodate the claim for the second claimant. 6. The award passed by the Tribunal under Section 140 of the Act on “no fault basis” to a legal heir is in accordance with law. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company also contends that the driver was not duly licenced. The vehicle involved in the accident was a tractor and the driver had a driving licence to drive the car. The car is a Light Motor Vehicle and the form and content of the licence as under Section 10 of the Act provides only for a category of Light Motor Vehicle. It does not spell out any particular category as a tractor. With no proof that the driving skills for the tractor are different from driving the car, I cannot accept the plea that the driver was not duly licenced. The liability of the insurer to satisfy the claim and indemnify the insured are well founded. The appeal by the insurance company is dismissed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 5th October, 2010 Shivani Kaushik