FAO No.3049 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3049 of 2005 Date of Decision. 10.08.2010 New India Assurance Company Ltd., Hisar having its Regional Office, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its duly constituted attorney. ......Appellant Versus Smt. Rambati w/o Sh. Tara, resident of village Attarchata, Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad Haryana and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The insurance company is on appeal challenging the award on the ground that in respect of the very same accident, a claim petition had been filed by the widow and children of the deceased person and disposed of by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad in a case titled “Smt. Leela Vs. Krishan Kumar” and had awarded Rs.2,00,000/- compensation with interest. The parents-in- law had not been impleaded as parties by the widow. The subsequent petition came to be filed at the instance of the parents of the deceased making the very same accident as giving a fresh FAO No.3049 of 2005 -2- cause of action. While awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/-, the Court held that the widow ought to have impleaded the parents-in- law. If she had not impleaded them, the mother who was a legal heir cannot lose her right to compensation arising out of the death of the son. 2. I am afraid that the law envisaged by the Tribunal is not correct. There cannot be two independent claims arising out of the same accident by two sets of heirs/legal representatives. The expression used under the Motor Vehicles Act entitling persons to make the claim under Section 165 and 166 is the legal representative. The expression is larger than the expression legal heir. If the widow and the son had earlier filed an application as legal representatives and an award had been passed in their favour, the amount realized by them should only be taken as for themselves and in their capacity as holding in trust for other legal heirs and dependents also. The right of action by a mother, who had not been impleaded, ought to have been proceeded only against her daughter- in-law and grandson for seeking contribution and cannot duplicate yet another petition and seek for ascertainment of compensation. Even in this case, when the petition was prosecuted by the 1st respondent, it is seen that she has not chosen to implead her own daughter-in-law. If she has done, it could not have been possible for the Tribunal to direct the contribution to be made out of the amount already realized by her. 3. The denial of compensation to a mother for death of her son may seem unfair but it is a circumstance which the claimant has FAO No.3049 of 2005 -3- brought upon herself by adopting a procedure for enforcement of a right in a manner that was incompatible with law. The award of the Tribunal is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 10, 2010 Pankaj*