IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (125) BALJINDER SINGH @ BALWINDER KARMINDER KAUR AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Ms. Jyoti Pandey, Advocate, and Mr. M.M. Pandey, Advocate, for the **** VIRINDER AGGARWAL This has been directed against the order dated 16.07.2025, vide which, the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (in short ‘the the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC in a motor vehicle accidents of the claim petition on the grounds that the claim petition on be daughter is not maintainable as she is not entitled to compensation for loss of dependency in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sikha and Anr. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. And Ors, 2025 SCC Online SC 1090, 2. Aggrieved, the present revision petition has been filed on the grounds that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the settled law regarding the rights of the married daughters and has failed to appreciate the law laid down in the matter of application without actually having called for the evidence as to if respondent No.1/claimant is a married daughter or was financially dependent on her IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR- Date of Decision: BALJINDER SINGH @ BALWINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER Versus KARMINDER KAUR AND OTHERS -.- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL . Jyoti Pandey, Advocate, and Mr. M.M. Pandey, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral) This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directed against the order dated 16.07.2025, vide which, the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (in short ‘the the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC in a motor s claim petition. Petitioners has filed of the claim petition on the grounds that the claim petition on be daughter is not maintainable as she is not entitled to compensation for loss of dependency in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sikha and Anr. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. And Ors, 2025 SCC Online SC 1090, that application was declined. Aggrieved, the present revision petition has been filed on the grounds that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the settled law regarding the rights of the married daughters and has failed to appreciate the law aid down in the matter of Deep Sikha (supra). The Tribunal has dismissed the application without actually having called for the evidence as to if respondent No.1/claimant is a married daughter or was financially dependent on her IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -5783-2025 Date of Decision:-26.08.2025 SINGH AND ANOTHER … Petitioner ... Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directed against the order dated 16.07.2025, vide which, the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (in short ‘the Tribunal’) has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC in a motor claim petition. Petitioners has filed an application for rejection of the claim petition on the grounds that the claim petition on behalf of married daughter is not maintainable as she is not entitled to compensation for loss of dependency in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deep Sikha and Anr. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. And Ors, 2025 SCC Aggrieved, the present revision petition has been filed on the grounds that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the settled law regarding the rights of the married daughters and has failed to appreciate the law (supra). The Tribunal has dismissed the application without actually having called for the evidence as to if respondent No.1/claimant is a married daughter or was financially dependent on her petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directed against the order dated 16.07.2025, vide which, the learned Tribunal’) has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC in a motor application for rejection half of married daughter is not maintainable as she is not entitled to compensation for loss of Deep Sikha and Anr. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. And Ors, 2025 SCC Aggrieved, the present revision petition has been filed on the grounds that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the settled law regarding the rights of the married daughters and has failed to appreciate the law (supra). The Tribunal has dismissed the application without actually having called for the evidence as to if respondent No.1/claimant is a married daughter or was financially dependent on her SAURAV PATHANIA 2025.08.27 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document deceased father or not and evidence regarding dependency of the contesting respondent, whereas, this should be treated as a preliminary issue. 3. I have gone through the impugned order. There is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order and it cannot be held that the Tribunal has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in it. The grounds of the revision petition are itself contradictory. It is CPC are to be decided only on the basis of averments of the plaint without taking into consideration the defence of the respondents, whereas, in the grounds of revision petition, the petitioner itsel has not allowed the parties to lead the evidence with regard to the dependency of the respondent/claimant, so, when from the bare perusal of the claim petition, it cannot be concluded that claimant is not entitled the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in is required to consider the application of the petitioner, the learned Tribunal was right in declining the application and no ground is made out to well reasoned order of the Tribunal. 4. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed. 26.08.2025 S. Pathania Whether reasoned / speaking? Whether reportable? deceased father or not and the Tribunal has committed mistake in not recording evidence regarding dependency of the contesting respondent, whereas, this should be treated as a preliminary issue. I have gone through the impugned order. There is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order and it cannot be held that the Tribunal has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in it. The grounds of the revision petition are itself contradictory. It is settled law that the petitions under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC are to be decided only on the basis of averments of the plaint without taking into consideration the defence of the respondents, whereas, in the grounds petition, the petitioner itself has raised the ground has not allowed the parties to lead the evidence with regard to the dependency of the respondent/claimant, so, when from the bare perusal of the claim petition, it cannot be concluded that claimant is not entitled the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Deep Shikha is required to consider the application of the petitioner, the learned Tribunal was right in declining the application and no ground is made out to well reasoned order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed. (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No the Tribunal has committed mistake in not recording evidence regarding dependency of the contesting respondent, whereas, this I have gone through the impugned order. There is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order and it cannot be held that the Tribunal has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in it. The grounds of the revision petition are settled law that the petitions under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC are to be decided only on the basis of averments of the plaint without taking into consideration the defence of the respondents, whereas, in the grounds raised the ground that the Tribunal has not allowed the parties to lead the evidence with regard to the dependency of the respondent/claimant, so, when from the bare perusal of the claim petition, it cannot be concluded that claimant is not entitled to maintain petition in view of Deep Shikha (supra) and evidence is required to consider the application of the petitioner, the learned Tribunal was right in declining the application and no ground is made out to interfere in the Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed. (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No the Tribunal has committed mistake in not recording evidence regarding dependency of the contesting respondent, whereas, this I have gone through the impugned order. There is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order and it cannot be held that the Tribunal has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in it. The grounds of the revision petition are settled law that the petitions under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC are to be decided only on the basis of averments of the plaint without taking into consideration the defence of the respondents, whereas, in the grounds that the Tribunal has not allowed the parties to lead the evidence with regard to the dependency of the respondent/claimant, so, when from the bare perusal of the claim petition, it to maintain petition in view of evidence is required to consider the application of the petitioner, the learned Tribunal was interfere in the SAURAV PATHANIA 2025.08.27 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document