FAO No. 5157 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 5157 of 2010 Date of decision August 30, 2010 General Manager and others ....... Appellant Versus Gurmeet Kaur and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ***** Present:- Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG., Haryana for the appellant. ****** K. Kannan, J (oral) 1. The appeal is by the Government against the award for compensation for death of a person aged 50 years. The claimant originally was the widow and after her death her daughters were added as parties. It appears that the application for impleadment had been filed beyond 90 days from the death of widow and the Tribunal had initially rejected the petition. On a revision filed to this Court, it was allowed and the daughters were brought on record and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would contend that amongst the daughters only one daughter was dependent and others were all married daughters. They were, therefore, not dependent. It is also contended that the Tribunal was wrong in awarding interest from the date of filing of the petition when the delay had been caused before the Tribunal was at the instance of the claimants themselves and therefore, interest ought not to have been awarded from then onwards. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,88,200/-, which in my view, is a FAO No. 5157 of 2010 2 modest sum for the death of a person aged 50 years. It will be wrong to assume that compensations are given only to persons who are wholly dependent on the deceased persons. The daughters are legal heirs and the expression used under Sections 165 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a 'legal representative'. Their dependence is only one of the factors for consideration but even a daughter who is not dependent is entitled to claim compensation for the death of the father as a heir. It is incorrect to state that except one, others who are married are not entitled for compensation. Even the contention of the learned counsel that the Tribunal could not have awarded interest from the date of the petition is erroneous. If the Tribunal had originally dismissed the petition for impleadment on the ground of that the petition was filed beyond 90 days when there was no such limitation for impleadment of L.Rs as per the State amendment, the claimant would be not said to be at fault. The delay shall have relevance only if they had caused the appellant to suffer an award and deposit the money when it was otherwise willing to concede their claim. The respondent has, contested the case and the award has come after a full fledged trial. The time taken by the Court in disposing of the petition or for the error that the Tribunal had originally made by the dismissal of the application that required an intervention from this Court in revision cannot be matters for the owner of the vehicle to plead that it cannot be made liable for interest. Interest liability springs itself under Section 171 and the only limitation which is prescribed under this Section is that interest cannot be charged for a period earlier than the date of making of the claim petition. In this case, the claim petition had been filed by the widow in time and the starting point for charging interest shall be the date of the original institution, although, the legal representatives who were added only subsequently. 3. The award of the Tribunal is perfectly justified in FAO No. 5157 of 2010 3 the manner it has been done and there are no merits in the appeal filed by the State. The appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 30, 2010 archana