Legal Reference Library

The Karnataka High Court in Hussain vs. Imtiyan Khan has held that a legal representative of a claimant cannot challenge the award and she does not inherit the right to prosecute the appeal after death of the claimant. The legal representative of the claimant had contended that when insurance company files an appeal challenging the award of the tribunal, if a legal representative of the injured can be permitted to come on record on the death of injured during the pendency of the appeal, the same is to be permitted when the injured files an appeal and dies subsequently. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar said: “If he had not died, he could have prosecuted the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The moment he died, his wife is only entitled to recover the compensation granted by the tribunal. Right to prosecute an appeal being a legal representative is not heritable. If it is possible to make out the cause of death as due to personal injuries owing to accident, the wife gets a ri...

The Supreme Court in Prabhakara Adiga vs. Gowri, has held that a decree for injunction can also be executed against legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor, in view of the specific provisions contained in section 50 of the Code of Procedure. A bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Amitava Roy observed that when the right litigated upon is heritable, the decree would not normally abate and can be enforced by legal representatives of decree-holder and against the judgment-debtor or his legal representatives. It would be against the public policy to ask the decree-holder to litigate once over again against the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor when the cause and injunction survives, the bench said. The bench set aside a Karnataka High Court judgment which had held that the decree for permanent injunction cannot be enforced against the legal heirs of judgment-debtor, as injunction does not travel with land. The bench noted that the maxim “actio pe...

Awarding Rs 51.75 lakh to a married woman for the accidental death of her brother, a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has held that legal heirs, even if not dependent on the deceased, are eligible for compensation. The claimant, Divya Alok Srivastav informed Thane MACT that on May 23, 2007, her brother 237-year-old brother Abhisek Kumar, who worked with ICICI Prudential Life Insurance and earned about Rs 4 lakh salary per year, had hired a taxi One Sai Network Agency and proceeded to Shirdi along with her parents to offer prayers. The next morning they were on way to Pune when car driver Sagar Vilas Lokhande, who was allegedly speeding, lost control over the vehicle which rammed into a tree at roadside. In the accident, the claimant’s father, mother, brother Abhishek and the taxi driver died on the spot. Divya alleged that the accident occurred due to the driver’s sole negligence, and that she was eligible for compensation for her brother’s death. The taxi owner did not contest...

The debt recovery tribunal and the appellate tribunal "misdirected themselves" by pursuing the grandchildren of a guarantor when there was no evidence that they had inherited the estate of the guarantor, the Delhi High Court stated last week in the case, Rohini Kanoi vs Allahabad Bank. In this case, a firm took loan from Allahabad Bank which was not repaid. The bank took the firm and the guarantors to the tribunal. Since one guarantor had died, his grandchildren were also made parties by the tribunal. They challenged their impleadment, that too after ten years. The high court stated that the tribunal could not make the grandchildren suffer the trial on a "bald assertion", after a long delay, that the bank had learnt that they had inherited the estate of the guarantor.