Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 06.08.2025
POOJA AGGARWAL & ANR .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Shekhar Aggarwal, Advocate.
COMPANY LTD .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajeev M. Roy, Adv. for R-2.
POOJA AGGARWAL & ANR .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Shekhar Aggarwal, Advocate.
COMPANY LTD) .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajeev M. Roy, Adv. for R-2.
JUDGMENT
1. The present Appeals have been filed on behalf of the Appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as the “MV Act”] impugning the award dated 02.06.2017 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Award”] passed by the learned Additional District Judge (North East), PO MACT (Pilot Court), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. By the Impugned Award, the claim petitions that have been filed by the Appellants were dismissed by the learned Tribunal.
2. Briefly, the facts in the present Appeals are that the deceased, one Mr. Ashok Aggarwal was travelling along with his wife, son, daughter-in-law and grandson on 02.10.2012 at around 02:30 p.m., when they reached at National Highway No.2, a Swaraj Tractor bearing No.855FE, which was being driven by a driver at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly without prior indication tried to turn the tractor and stopped it. As a result of this sudden turn, the car collided with the tractor. A fire also erupted and all the occupants namely, Ashok Aggarwal (the appellant’s father), Manju Aggarwal (the appellant’s mother), Amit Aggarwal (the appellant’s brother), Seema Aggarwal (the appellant’s sister-in-law), and Shobit Aggarwal (the appellant’s nephew), received serious injuries and died on the spot.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that on 02.10.2012, in an accident, the death of the father, mother, brother, brother’s wife and child was caused. The Appellants/Claimants in the present two Appeals are the sisters who have lost their parents, brother, brother’s wife and nephew. 3.[1] The Appellants filed five claim petitions for compensation, for which two separate orders were passed, dated 10.07.2017 and 02.06.2017 (Impugned Award) respectively one for the death of their father, mother and brother, another for the death of their sister-in-law and nephew. The claim petitions were adjudicated before the learned Tribunal. An objection was raised by the Respondent No.2/Insurance Company that the claim petitions were not maintainable due to misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the tractor [the offending vehicle].
4. The learned Tribunal however found that since the Appellants were married and residing with the family in their matrimonial home, there is nothing on record to infer that they are the legal representatives of the deceased and representing their estate. Thus, a finding was given that they are neither dependents nor the legal representatives of the deceased. 4.[1] The learned Tribunal also gave a finding that the Petitioners did not implead the other legal representatives of the family members who died in the accident despite repeated opportunities, thus, the claim petitions were dismissed.
5. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2/Insurance Company reiterates its contention that in terms of the provisions of Section 166 of the MV Act, all legal representatives of the deceased have to be made a party in the claim petition else the petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Sub-section (1) (a) and (b) of Section 166 of the MV Act provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident may be filed by the injured or by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. Section 166 (1) (c) of the MV Act provides that where death has resulted from the accident, the application for compensation may be filed by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, thus, the Section does not require compulsorily for all legal representatives to file such an application, in the following manner:
representatives of the deceased; or
(d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be: Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. Provided further that where a person accepts compensation under section 164 in accordance with the procedure provided under section 149, his claims petition before the Claims Tribunal shall lapse. [Emphasis Supplied] 6.[1] The first proviso to Section 166 (1) of the MV Act also provides that where the legal representatives have not been joined in any application, an application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives and those who have not so been joined shall be impleaded as respondents.
7. The Appellants also filed a claim in respect of the death of their father, mother and brother and being the only surviving members of these three persons bearing Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Ms. Manju Aggarwal & Mr. Amit Aggarwal, being MAC Appeals MAC.APP. 784/2017 [for claim in respect of father], MAC.APP. 785/2017 [for claim in respect of mother] & MAC.APP. 789/2017 [for claim in respect of brother]. The present Appeals have been filed by the Appellants for the claims of their brother’s wife and their brother’s son. 7.[1] The learned Tribunal by its order dated 25.08.2015 has ordered that all the five claim Petitions are to be consolidated for the purpose of evidence. The evidence recorded in one case was ordered to be read in other cases as well.
8. By the Impugned Award, the learned Tribunal gave a finding that the Appellants were not dependent upon the deceased Smt. Seema Aggarwal (sister-in-law) and Master Shobhit Aggarwal (nephew) and that there is no averment in this regard. The learned Tribunal further found that claim petitions did not contain any averment as to the dependency of the Appellants on the deceased sister-in-law and nephew.
9. The perusal of claim petitions as filed by the Appellants however reflects that it contains an averment that the Appellants were all dependent on the income of the deceased and that all the legal heirs have suffered from the mental pain and agony and from economic loss due to the sudden demise of the deceased. It is apposite to extract the relevant paragraphs of the Claim Petition as filed before the learned Trial Court, in this behalf, which are set out below: “1. Name and father’s name of the person injured/ dead (husband’s name in case of widow). Smt. Seema Aggarwal W/o Late Sh. Amit Aggarwal
27. … i) That the accident took place due to the sole rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the offending vehicle who drove the vehicle at a very high speed rashly, negligently and without caring for the rules of the traffic. ii) That the petitioners suffered from mental pain and agony and from economic loss also due to the sudden demise of the deceased. iii) That all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. iv) That the entire family of the deceased has died in this accident, Grand Mother and Father, Mother and Father and only the two Aunty (Boua) is alive in the family. …
1. Name and father’s name of Shobhit Aggarwal S/o the person injured/ dead (husband’s name in case of widow). Late Sh. Amit Aggarwal
27. … i) That the accident took place due to the sole rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the offending vehicle who drove the vehicle at a very high speed rashly, negligently and without caring for the rules of the traffic. ii) That the petitioners suffered from mental pain and agony and from economic loss also due to the sudden demise of the deceased. iii) That all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. iv) That the entire family of the deceased has died in this accident, Grand Mother and Father, Mother and Father and only the two Aunty (Boua) is alive in the family. …” 9.[1] The averment that the Appellants were all dependent on the income of the deceased and that all the legal heirs have suffered from the mental pain and agony and from economic loss due to the sudden demise of the deceased was further raised in the Evidence of Petitioner by way of Affidavit dated 20.10.2014. It is apposite to extract the relevant paragraphs of the Affidavit filed by Appellant No.2, Smt. Nidhi Aggarwal in MAC.APP. 721/2017 captioned Pooja Aggarwal & Anr v. Ved Pal @ Rinku & Ors (Future General Insurance Company Ltd) in this behalf, which is set out below: “12. That we all were living together.
13. That we all were dependent upon the income of the deceased. The deceased were hale and hearty and they were not addicted to any vices. The incomes of the deceased were increasing and it was very likely that their income would have been increased manifold in case they did not die in the accident.
14. That all the legal heirs have suffered from mental pain and agony and from economic loss due to the sudden demise of my father, mother, brother, sister-in-law and nephew.”
10. Learned Counsel for the Appellants has contended that these Petitions could not have been dismissed by the learned Tribunal since the Appellants qualify as legal heirs of the deceased being the only legal heirs of their brother late Amit Agarwal. It is contended that the Appellants fall under Section 15(1)(b) read with Class II [Entry II] of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as the “HS Act”], and hence, are entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased in the absence of the Class I legal heirs. 10.[1] Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Insurance Company has, on the other hand, contended that the Impugned Award does not contain any infirmity as Appellants are not the legal heirs of the deceased Smt. Seema Aggarwal and Master Shobit Aggarwal.
11. A review of the Impugned Award shows that the award premises itself on the fact that the other legal heirs of the deceased are neither impleaded nor has the Respondent taken appropriate steps in this regard. The learned Tribunal gave a finding that since both the Petitioners are residing in their respective matrimonial homes, there is nothing on record to show that they are dependent on the deceased, nor that they are the legal representatives of the deceased. The learned Tribunal further gives a finding that no document has been filed which would prove that the Appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased and thus, the Claim Petition as filed is rejected.
12. The legal heirs of the deceased Smt. Seema Aggarwal in terms of Section 15 of the HS Act would be her son/daughter and her husband, thereafter upon the heirs of her husband and thereafter upon the mother and father of the deceased, and thereafter upon the heirs of the father and heirs of the mother under the HS Act, in the following terms: Section 15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus. (1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16, (a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband; (b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband;
(c) thirdly, upon the mother and father;
(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and
(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), (a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and (b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband.” [Emphasis supplied] 12.[1] Section 16 of the HS Act provides the rules for succession and dissolution and states that the distribution of interstate property amongst the heirs shall take place in terms of the rules therein and the order of succession for a Hindu female shall be in terms sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the HS Act and in terms of Rule 1 of Section 16 of the HS Act, the heirs specified in any one entry shall be preferred to any succeeding entry and those included shall take simultaneously. The relevant extract of this provision is set out below: “Section 16. Order of succession and manner of distribution among heirs of a female Hindu. The order of succession among the heirs referred to in section 15 shall be, and the distribution of the intestate's property among those heirs shall take place according to the following rules, namely:― Rule 1.―Among the heirs specified in sub-section (1) of section 15, those in one entry shall be preferred to those in any succeeding entry, and those included in the same entry shall take simultaneously. Rule 2.―If any son or daughter of the intestate had pre-deceased the intestate leaving his or her own children alive at the time of the intestates death, the children of such son or daughter shall take between them the share which such son or daughter would have taken if living at the intestates death. Rule 3.―The devolution of the property of the intestate on the heirs referred to in clauses (b), (d) and (e) of sub-section (1) and in subsection (2) of section 15 shall be in the same order and according to the same rules as would have applied if the property had been the father's or the mother's or the husband's as the case may be, and such person had died intestate in respect thereof immediately after the intestate's death.” 12.[2] Rule 3 of Section 16 of the HS Act provides that the property of the heirs referred to in Section 15(1)(b) shall be in the same order or according to the same rules as would have applied if the property would have the father, mother, or the husband.
13. Section 8 of the HS Act and the Schedule to the HS Act set out the succession for a Hindu male in the following terms:
13.[1] The Schedule of the HS Act on the other hand provides for heirs in Class I and Class II in the following terms: “THE SCHEDULE (See section 8) HEIRS IN CLASS I AND CLASS II Class I Son; daughter; widow; mother; son of a pre-deceased son; daughter of a pre-deceased son; son of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a predeceased daughter; widow of a pre-deceased son; son of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son; daughter of a pre-deceased son of a predeceased son; widow of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son 1 [son of a predeceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a predeceased son of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased son. Class II
I. Father.
III. (1) Daughter’s son’s son, (2) daughter’s son’s daughter, (3) daughter’s daughter’s son, (4) daughter’s daughter’s daughter.
V. Father’s father; father’s mother.
VI. Father’s widow; brother’s widow.
VII. Father’s brother; father’s sister.
VIII. Mother’s father; mother’s mother.
IX. Mother’s brother; mother’s sister.
Explanation.―In this Schedule, references to a brother or sister do not include references to a brother or sister by uterine blood.”
14. As stated above, the learned Tribunal has by its order dated 25.08.2015 had directed that all five Claim Petitions are to be consolidated for the purposes of evidence and that the evidence recorded in MACT NO. 433/12 captioned Pooja Aggarwal and another v. Ved Pal @ Rinku and others would be treated as the main Petition and would be read in all other cases as well.
15. The Appellants filed the surviving members certificate [Ex.PW1/8] of the deceased Mr. Ashok Aggarwal. The Appellants also placed on record Ration Card of their father Ashok Aggarwal (deceased) [Ex. PW1/8], Adhaar Card of Seema Aggarwal (deceased) [Mark A] and Birth Certificate of Shobit Aggarwal (deceased) [Ex. PW1/7]. The learned Tribunal however gave a finding in the Impugned Award that no document has been filed by the Appellants even though these documents were on the record of the learned Tribunal.
16. In essence, the Appellants have claimed to be heirs of the husband of the deceased Smt. Seema Aggarwal, being his sisters, in terms of the provisions of the HS Act, which provides for inheritance by the sisters in Entry (II), since, there are no surviving heirs of Class I. The only Class I heir of the deceased Smt. Seema Aggarwal being her son has also passed away.
17. The finding in the Impugned Award that the Appellants are neither dependants nor the legal representative of the deceased is erroneous given the provisions of Section 15(1)(b) and Section 16 of the HS Act read with Class II (Entry II) of the Schedule of the HS Act.
18. The provisions of Section 15 of the HS Act set out that in the case of a Hindu female as the deceased Smt. Seema Aggarwal would devolve upon her heirs being her son, daughter, and her husband and thereafter, upon the heirs of her husband. Section 16 of the HS Act provides that where the heirs are specified in Section 15 of the HS Act, those in one entry shall be preferred to those in any succeeding entry, and those included in the same entry shall take simultaneously. Section 15(1)(b) of the HS Act provides for the heirs of the husband as being the legal representatives. This provision read with Rule 1 shows that the heirs of the husband shall be preferred to the succeeding entry which is the mother and father or heirs of the father and the mother. 18.[1] The Appellants being the heirs of the husband as is set out in Class II Entry II (4) of the Schedule to the HS Act being the sister, would qualify as heirs of the husband and in terms of Rule 1 to Section 16 of the HS Act, would be preferred to the heirs of her mother and father and shall take simultaneously.
19. Similarly, so far as concerns the succession in relation to the nephew of the Appellants, the Entry VII of Class II of the Schedule to HS Act shows that the Appellants would also be the legal heirs of the deceased Master Shobhit Aggarwal being the legal heirs of his deceased father as “father’s sister” and shall also take simultaneously.
20. The finding of the learned Tribunal is that the Appellants are not representing the estate of the deceased Smt. Meena Aggarwal and Master Shobhit Aggarwal and the fact that the other legal heirs have not been impleaded, the Claim Petition has been dismissed.
21. In view of the aforegoing discussion, this finding of the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The Appeals are allowed.
22. The matter is remanded to the learned Tribunal for a fresh adjudication. However, and given the fact that substantial time has elapsed since the accident, the learned Tribunal is requested to expedite the hearing in the matter and as far as possible rely on the evidence that is already available on record.
23. It is clarified that the findings on whether the Appellants are legal heirs of the deceased is prima facie and the learned Tribunal is at liberty to examine if there are any other legal heirs of the deceased Smt. Seema Aggarwal and Master Shobit Aggarwal who would also be entitled to a claim.
24. The parties shall appear before the learned Tribunal on 29.08.2025.
25. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that they shall not take any unnecessary adjournments before the learned Tribunal. The parties are bound down by the statement made by their counsel today.
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J AUGUST 6, 2025/ha/pa