Motor Accident Claim Petition Does Not Abate On Death Of Original Claimant, Legal Representatives Can Be Substituted: Punjab & Haryana High Court

 Ved Parkash, husband of claimant-Satya Devi met with a motor vehicle accident and later on died and her legal representatives filed the claim petition which was allowed vide impugned award dated 8.4.2022.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal wrongly treated that during the pendency of the claim proceedings Satya Devi and her LRs were impleaded on the basis of a registered Will executed by Satya Devi in favour of nephews of deceased Ved Parkash. It is further argued that since they were issueless, the Tribunal has wrongly awarded the compensation.

The Tribunal by deducting the interest, had assessed the total income of Rs.70,000/- per annum as notional income and by deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenditure, it had applied the multiplier of 3 and additionally granted Rs.16,500/- towards the funeral expenses. The Tribunal had accordingly awarded the compensation of Rs.1,79,000/-, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

The bench comprising Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan placed reliance on the judgement of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon and held that the Motor Accident Claim petition does not abate on the death of original claimant, and can be substituted by legal representatives of the claimant.

After hearing the counsel for the appellant, the court opined that the instant appeal lacks merit because the factum of negligence has been proved by CW1 and CW2.

Moreover, 'will' executed by the claimant in favour of Ved Parkash has not been contested by the appellant-Insurance Company and in absence of any challenge with regard to the validity of the 'will', the Tribunal rightly concluded that the respondent-Ved Parkash and others are the legal heirs of the claimant.

Even otherwise, the court noted that failure to cross-examine eye-witness despite having availed the opportunity should lead to inference of tacit admission of such witness's testimony as per the judgement of Anita Sharma Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited.

Even otherwise, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2021(1) SCC 171 Anita Sharma Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited that failure to cross-examine the eye-witness despite availing opportunity must lead to inference of tacit admission of testimony of such witness.

In view of the above, finding no merits in the instant appeal, the court dismissed the same.

Case Title: National Insurance Company Limited through its Assistant Manager Vs. Satya Devi (since deceased) through her Legal Heirs and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 192