PRAVINKUMAR VALLABHDAS MINOR Vs. CHHOTALAL PARMANANDAS AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) * * * * *

(2.) The first question to be decided is whether such separate applications by different claimants Were tenable or not. The learned Tribunal in this contention has inter alia observed as under:

(3.) If any authority is needed for the proposition that sec. 110A is an enabling provision and not a disabling one the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Pitiush Santi Ghosh v. Sm. Maya Rani Chatterjee & Others A.I.R. 1971 Calcutta 229 is the one readily available. It has been observed there that an application made by one or more heirs of the deceased is maintainable even if other heirs are not impleaded and that even in such a case the power of the Tribunal is not limited to awarding compensation in favour of applicants or to the extent of their shares and that a legal representative of the deceased applying for compensation and getting the same will hold it not only on his own behalf but also as a trustee for other legal representatives entitled to a share in the compensation. The obvious error committed by the Tribunal therefore deserves to be rectified and adequate compensation deserves to be given to the heirs who are here before me in these three appeals represented by their natural guardian their mother.