Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


SAVITA v. HARINDER & Ors - FAO-5463-2005 [2005] RD-P&H 119 (24 August 2005)


F.A.O. No. 5463 of 2005

Date of decision : 15.12.2005




Harinder and others


Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K.Sud

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh

Present : Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the appellant Virender Singh,J.

Appellant Savita is married daughter of Raj Singh since deceased who died in a vehicular accident on 26.11.2001 on account of rash and negligent driving of Chhotu Ram respondent no. 4, the driver of Tata Susmo bearing No. HR-26-E-9702 owned by Karnail Singh respondent no. 5 and insured with the Oriental Insurance Company respondent no. 6. The appellant and her other sister Sunita who was also married filed a claim petition asking for the compensation on account of death of their father. Widow of Raj Singh, Sheela Devi also filed her separate claim petition. Vide impugned award of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Panipat dated 5.3.2005, Sheela Devi the widow of deceased Raj Singh has been granted compensation of Rs 2,08,600/- along with interest @ 6% per annum whereas the claim petition of the appellant and her sister Sunita stands dismissed. Hence, this appeal.

It may be mentioned here that Sunita, the other sister of the appellant has not shown her grievance against the said award.

Since there is a delay of 30 days in filing the appeal and an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act bearing CM No.

25436.CII of 2005 has also been moved for condonation of the said delay.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the impugned award.

Mr. Mamli contends that although the present appellant is the married daughter of Raj Singh since deceased and was staying separately in village Jaton Distt. Karnal, yet she was dependent upon the income of Raj Singh her father as he was contributing some amount towards her also. Mr. Mamli then contends that in this regard, the appellant had stepped into witness box and stated on oath that her father was contributing some income towards her and her other sister Sunita as well. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel contends that the present appellant and her sister were also entitled to some compensation.

We do not agree with the submissions of Mr. Mamli.

Although Sheela Devi widow of deceased Raj Singh has stated that her husband was working as Supervisor in Asian Polymers, Jalandhar but the learned Tribunal did not agree with the evidence adduced in this regard and came to the conclusion that the income of deceased Raj Singh was to be considered as of a casual labour i.e. Rs 2100/- per month and thereafter he deducted 1/3rd

of his income towards his personal expenses and then assessed the annual dependency at Rs 16800/-. The stand taken by Sheela Devi the widow of the deceased was that her two daughters who were married are not entitled to any compensation. The learned Tribunal while relying upon the judgment of this Court rendered in Rajinder Pal Sharma vs. Jaswant Singh and others, 1999 ACJ 1542 observed that unless the claimants are really dependent upon the income of the deceased they are not entitled to claim any amount of compensation. The finding of the learned Tribunal is that the present appellant and her sister Sunita being not dependent upon the income of her father are not entitled to any amount of compensation and therefore has awarded the entire amount in favour of Sheela Devi, the widow of the deceased. It is otherwise not possible that the deceased was contributing any amount towards the married daughters out of very meagre income. Therefore, we do not find any reason to disturb the finding of the learned Tribunal.

As we have already observed that the appellant has no case on merits, we dismiss the application for condonation of delay as well.

No other point has been urged before us.

Resultantly, the present appeal is dismissed in limine itself.

( Virender Singh )


( N. K. Sud )


December 15, 2005



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.