Himachal Pradesh High Court
National Insurance Company vs . Ritu Sharma And Others on 4 June, 2025
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
National Insurance Company vs. Ritu Sharma and others
FAO (MVA) No.424 of 2014,a/w FAO No. 270
of 2016 and FAO No. 100 of 2015
FAO No. 424 of 2014
04.06.2025 Present: Ms.Kamakshi Tarlokta, Advocate, for the
appellant.
Ms.Ritu Sharma, Advocate, for respondent
No.1.
Mr.Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent No.2.
None for respondents No.3 and 4, though
represented by Mr.Rahul Thakur, Advocate.
Respondent No.5 is ex parte.
Mr.Surya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent
No.6.
Respondent No.7 is stated to have expired.
None for respondents No.8(i) and 8(ii) though
represented by Mr.Kunal Verma, Advocate.
FAO No. 270 of 2015
Ms.Kamakshi Tarlokta, Advocate, for the
appellant.
Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate, for
respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr. Sambhav Bhasin, Advocate, for
respondent No.5.
FAO No. 100 of 2015
Ms. Veena Sharma Advocate, for the
appellant.
Mr.Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, for appellant
No.2.
None for respondents No.1 and 2, though
represented by Mr.Rahul Thakur, Advocate.
Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate, for respondent
No.3.
Mr.Surya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent
No.4.
None for respondent No.5
Mr. Amit Himalvi, Advocate, for respondent
No.6.
Proposed respondents No. 7(a) & 7(b)
already ex-parte.
CMP No. 11743 of 2025 in FAO (MVA) No. 424 of 2014
Reply to the application is permitted to be filed
during the course of the day.
List for further orders on 05.06.2025.
CMP No. 8144 of 2015 in FAO No. 270 of 2015
The application is disposed of in terms of order
dated 5.8.2015 passed in this application.
CMP No. 19983 of 2024 in FAO No. 270 of 2015
As already directed vide order dated 14.11.2024,
this application is to be listed along with main appeal for final
hearing.
CMP Nos. 2274 and 2275 of 2017 in FAO No. 100 of 2015
These applications were filed in the year 2017 for
substitution of deceased respondent No.7 Saroj through her
legal heirs mentioned in para-4 of in CMP (M) No. 2274 of
2017.
Till date no reply has been filed to these
applications.
Proposed respondents No. 7(a) and 7(b) also
stand duly served but they have not chosen to contest the
appeal. Therefore, they have been proceeded against ex-
parte.
As per the averments made in the applications
CMP(M) No. 2274 of 2017 there is no other surviving legal
heir of deceased Saroj except proposed respondents No. 7(a)
and 7(b). This fact has not been disputed by any one
including proposed respondents No.7(a) and 7(b).
It is also apt to the record that respondent No.7
Saroj was perfoma respondent before the MACT and she had
not contested the claim petition, as evident from the memo of
parties of the impugned award. In fact Saroj was mother of
the deceased victim Sumeet Sharma and she was arrayed as
party being legal heir of deceased Sumeet Sharma.
Impugned award was passed on 12.08.2014
whereas respondent Saroj had expired on 11.4.2012 .
Respondents No. 7(a) and 7(b) are other two sons
of Saroj other than her deceased son Sumeet Raj. In absence
of Saroj, at the time of filing of the claim petition as well as
during pendency thereof, at no stretch of imagination, they
could have been considered as dependents upon Sumeet
Sharma so as to entitle them to join the proceedings as
claimants or performa respondents.
It is apparent that Saroj had expired before
passing the award by MACT. She might have been a claimant
being dependent upon of her deceased son Sumeet Sharma,
however, for her death during the pendency of the claim
petition, before determination of the amount of compensation
payable to the claimant, she would not have been entitled for
any claim and the entire compensation shall be payable to
the surviving claimants, who are appellants in the present
appeal. It is also relevant to notice that claimants/appellants
being dependent legal heirs of pre -deceased son of Saroj are
also legal heirs of Saroj.
In view of above discussion, legal heirs of Saroj
proposed as respondents No. 7(a) and 7(b) are not necessary
party and therefore, they are not arrayed as party
respondents No. 7(a) and 7(b).
In the aforesaid circumstances, prayer to implead
proposed LRs 7(a) and 7(b) is rejected and name of
respondent No.7 Saroj is ordered to be deleted.
Accordingly applications are disposed of in
aforesaid terms.
FAO No. 100 of 2015
Amended memo of parties be filed within one
week.
List for hearing on 24.06.2025, along with FAO
No. 424 of 2014, the date already fixed.
(Vivek Singh Thakur)
Judge
June 04, 2025(g.m)
[ad_1]
Source link