FAO No.2111 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2111 of 2001 Date of Decision.13.07.2010 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Law Officer, Sh. B.L. Jagwan .........Appellant Versus Ram Phal son of Sh. Nanak Chand others .......Respondents Present: Mr. L.M. Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is against the award passed by the Tribunal awarding compensation of Rs.90,000/- for the parents for the death of their son in a motor accident. It was admitted even in the petition that the widow and the children had earlier filed a claim application for compensation without impleading them and had secured an award in the presence of the insurance company for Rs.1,98,000/- on a compromise and an award was passed in terms thereof on 25.07.1997. One year later on 28.02.1998, the parents had filed the petition making a reference about the fact of the earlier award and the fact that they were themselves dependents on FAO No.2111 of 2001 -2- the deceased and seeking for compensation. The insurance company took the plea of non-maintainability on the ground that there could not be two awards for the same death, one at the instance of the widow and children and another at the instance of the parents. The Tribunal still awarded a compensation of Rs.90,000/- by reworking the compensation at Rs.2,88,000/- and providing for an adjustment of Rs.1,98,000/- for award already passed and awarding Rs.90,000/- for the parents. 2. The contention in the appeal by the insurer is that the Tribunal did not have the competence to entertain the claim for the same cause of action at the instance of the parents. The submission is well founded in law, for a compensation that is determined is on the basis of what the estate yields to the legal representatives. Normally it is expected that all the legal representatives are brought on record in the same case and if between themselves, there are the persons, who would not join as petitioners, they could only be expected to be arrayed as respondents. If on the other hand, the claim is prosecuted in the absence of all of them, and the persons, secured the compensation with no trace of collusion with the insurer the remedy of the persons, who have been left out, shall only be to secure contribution from the persons, who have already obtained the award. The persons that secured the compensation under an award will be treated as trustees from whom such contribution will become possible at the instance of other legal representatives. In this case when the petitioners had the knowledge of the fact that there had been another award, they could not have independently maintained FAO No.2111 of 2001 -3- an action even without impleading the widow and children, who had secured the award earlier. The petition was clearly not maintainable and the Tribunal could not have re-assessed the compensation afresh and merely providing for deduction of the amount, which was granted earlier. The amount determined for the death of a person could be done only once and it cannot be done for every person who approaches the Court at his/her own convenience. 3. The award of the Tribunal under these circumstances is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 13, 2010 Pankaj*