SHARDA Vs. DHARMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I . CM No. 18855 -CII of 2010 in and FAO No.2376 of 1995 (O&M) This is an application filed by the claimants for restoration of appeal which was dismissed for default on 05.01.1996. The appeal had been filed for enhancement of compensation for death of a person in a motor accident. The claimants were wife, daughter and two sons. The deceased was 35 years of age at that time. The Insurance Company had also come on appeal challenging liability on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The appeal has been pending.

(2.) THE contention of the claimants in the application for restoration is that the counsel, who had been engaged to file the appeal, had subsequently died and the parties were under the impression that the case was still pending. Only at that time when the Insurance Company 's appeal came up for hearing, it was represented that the claimant 'sappeal must also be tacked along with it and only at the time it was known that the appeal had been dismissed for default. There is no doubt there is enormous delay for filing the application for restoration. If the Insurance Company 'sappeal had already been disposed of, the application could have been dealt differently. But if the Insurance Company 'sappeal is also still pending and a finality had not reached with reference to the award already passed by the Tribunal, I do not think any prejudice would be caused either to the claimant or to the owner. Both of them are represented through counsel and present before me. Under the circumstances, I allow the application and direct the counsel to make their respective submissions even in the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation.

(3.) IT is contended that the Tribunal had not provided for the medical expenses, for, the deceased had fairly a long spell of hospitalization and he had filed the petition in his own through a next friend but he had died during the pendency of proceedings and later the application was amended by impleading the legal representatives and claiming compensation as one for death in respect of injuries as it was when the case is originally filed. The medical bills were marked as P -1 to P -232 which total up to Rs.71,000/ - and the entire amount has not been awarded. In my view, the medical expenses ought to have been provided for. I would also provide for Rs.5,000/ - for loss of consortium; Rs.2,500/ ' for each one of the minor children; Rs.2,500/ - for loss to estate and Rs.2,500/ - for funeral expenses.