LAWS(J&K)-1995-9-5

SEEMA MALIK VERMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On September 22, 1995
Seema Malik Verma Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO claim petitions entitled Smt. Seema Malik vs. Union of India and Smt. Yash Rani Vs. Union of India were filed before the Claims Tribunal. The claims arise out of an accident in which Sh. Ashok Kumar Malik and Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta died. The Tribunal decided both the claim petitions together by an order dated 1 -8 -1992.

(2.) THIS application has been filed by the claimants in the first claim petition which was titled Seema Malik Vs. Union of India being case No. 168/85. In this claim petition, Smt. Seema Malik had claimed compensation as widow of the deceased and Abhishek Malik being the minor son of the deceased. Besides these two claimants, Shri Krishan Chand Malik and Smt. Kailash Malik claimed compensation as parents of the deceased.

(3.) THE Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,35,000/ with 12% interest. Tribunal awarded Rs.85,000/ - in favour of the minor child of the deceased and Rs.50,000/ - to the parents of the deceased. No compensation was awarded in favour of the appellant widow of the deceased on the ground that during the pendency of the proceedings, she had remarried. This application for condonation of the appeal in filing the appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants on two grounds, firstly, that they were not knowing the fact that the claim petition has been decided because all along the deceased father was prosecuting the case and the present appellant had moved to Delhi. When they were told by father of the deceased that he will inform them about day to day progress of the case. Applicant No.1 submits that she was not informed by her father -in -law about the disposal of the case and she had only come to know in July, 1993 about the award having been passed. Secondly, the petitionerâ„¢s submits that since the applicant No.2 is a minor, the period of limitation for him shall start running only after he attains majority, therefore, the appeal should be construed to have been filed within the time, even if, it was as a matter of fact filed after more than 2 years of passing of the award.