RAJINDER KAUR Vs. MOHINDER SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeals have been filed at the instance of a person by name Rajinder Kaur, who claims herself to be the wife of deceased, Joga Singh. An application had been filed by her before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MACT case No. 122 of 2003 claiming compensation for death of her husband in a motor accident. In respect of the very same accident, there had been yet another claim for compensation at the instance of three persons who were the father, sister and brother of the deceased Joga Singh. Both the cases were disposed of together and the Tribunal held that the Rajinder Kaur, who was the claimant in MACT case No. 122 of 2003 had not established the marriage with the deceased Joga Singh and proceeded to award compensation only in favour of the father, brother and sister.

(2.) There had been an appeal filed by the father, brother and sister seeking for enhancement of claim for compensation in FAO No. 3275 of 2009 and Rajinder Kaur filed two appeals in FAO No. 2478 and 2479 of 2009 against the joint award passed by the Tribunal, one dismissing her petition and the other allowing the petition filed by the father, brother and sister. It appears that the case filed by the father, brother and sister had been taken up earlier by this Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S. Bhalia and the case came to decided on 12.10.2009. At the time when the appeal had been taken up and disposed of, the father had died and the appeal had been prosecuted only at the instance of the brother and sister. It is not very clear from the order as to whether the learned Judge was apprised to the fact of pendency of other two cases filed by the wife. This is merely to record the fact that the order does not spell out the pendency of the two other cases and he proceeded to dispose of the case making an enhancement of claim of compensation by another Rs. 2,50,000/-.

(3.) The appeals filed by Rajinder Kaur assail the awards passed by the Tribunal pointing out to certain features which according to the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has not been properly considered. The deceased was a person working as a Technical Officer in Central Government Administration in CSIO, Chandigarh. The contention of the Appellant was that she had been married to the deceased at Kitchlu Nagar Gurudwara, Ludhiana on 10.05.1999 and they had been residing together as husband and wife in House No. 292/2, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh. She had filed in support of her claim to her status as a wife that in the voter list, which had been released on 23.03.2002, she had been described as the wife of Joga Singh. She had also filed in support of her claim to marriage a voter identity card Ex.P1, where she was described as the wife of Joga Singh, a marriage card, which was exhibited as Ex.P3. There had also been some photographs filed and the person, who had taken the photographs of the marriage was one Surinder Pal, and he was also examined in the case as PW4. He had spoken to the fact that he had attended the wedding and he had taken the photographs of the ceremony of the marriage.