IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2158 of 2007 Date of Decision: May 20, 2009 Pritam Kaur … Petitioner Versus Surinder Kaur and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Mr. Ashok Bector, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Mittal, Advocate, for the respondents. **** S.D. Anand, J. (Oral) One Major Singh died in the impugned accident on 14.09.1998. His widow Surinder Kaur and two minor children filed a claim petition against the driver, registered owner and insurer of the offending vehicle without impleading the petitioner herein, who is mother of the deceased. That claim petition came to be allowed, vide award dated 04.05.2000. After that award came to be granted, the petitioner herein filed a claim petition which came to be declined by the learned Tribunal by observing that the petitioner may apply for the impleadment in appeal and get her share of compensation. It is common ground otherwise that the respondents (widow and minor two sons of the deceased) have C.R. No. 2158 of 2007 already filed an appeal (FAO No. 4286 of 2005) for enhancement of the awarded compensation. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, states that he has an apprehension that the respondents may defeat her claim by withdrawing the appeal at any stage. In view of the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the petitioner herein shall be entitled to her share of compensation even if any FAO is withdrawn or even declined. In that context, learned counsel for the petitioner herein reserves the right of the petitioner to raise a claim before the Court that she would be entitled to the first charge on the awarded/enhanced compensation and she would also entitled to raise a further plea for enhancement of compensation. In the context of the apprehension indicated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents states that the apprehension is unwarranted because the petitioner herein could file a counter claim in the enhancement plea which shall be disposed of by the Court which is seized of FAO No. 4286 of 2005. In view of the conceded factual position, it is evident that the interest of the petitioner herein shall be taken care of in terms of the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles 2 C.R. No. 2158 of 2007 Act. She would be entitled to apply for impleadment, as a party, to the appeal (FAO No. 4286 of 2005) filed by the respondents herein. She would also be entitled to file a plea for the enhancement of the awarded amount. The petition shall, in the light of and subject to the observations noticed in the above para, stand disposed of accordingly. May 20, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 3