AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.—Heard on admission. The appellant/Insurance company has filed this appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ''M.V. Act'') passed by 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short ''the Claims Tribunal'') in Claim Case No. 174/2011, vide award dated 25.3.2013 by which a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual payment has been awarded to the claimants, who are brothers of deceased--Ku. Chandini.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the claimants, being brothers of deceased Chandini, have filed the instant claim petition is not maintainable as they were not dependent upon the deceased and, therefore, the Tribunal has committed legal error in granting compensation in favour of the claimants.
I have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record including award impugned.
Section 166 of the Act corresponds to Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Old Act'') and the same reads as follows:
Application for compensation: (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made -
(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or
(b) by the owner of the property; or
(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or
(d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:
Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application.
(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed: Provided that where no claim for compensation u/s 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant.
Thus, in terms of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 166 of the Act in case of death, all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased become entitled to compensation and any such legal representative can file a claim petition. The proviso to said sub-section makes the position clear that where all the legal representatives had not joined, then application can be made on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased by impleading those legal representatives as respondents.
By virtue of Section 168 of the Act of 1988, the Tribunal has a duty to make an award, determine the amount of compensation which is just and proper and specify the person or persons to whom such compensation would be paid. The latter part relates to the entitlement of compensation by a person who claims for the same.
According to Section 2(11) of CPC, "legal representative" means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is used in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. Almost in similar terms is the definition of legal representative under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, i.e. u/s 2(1)(g).
In the instant case, three brothers being the claimants have laid Claim Petition seeking compensation for the death of their sister--Ku. Chandini as they are her legal representatives.
It is no longer res integra that for claiming compensation, claimants need not be the dependents upon the deceased. Once it is established that they are legal representative of the deceased, they are entitled to file claim petition claiming compensation.
The Supreme Court in case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad Vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Another, , considered the scheme and object of Section 110A of the M.V. Act, 1939, Sections 1A and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and also the report of the Law Commission of India and concluded that the parliament intended that the expression ''legal representative'' in Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act should be given a wider meaning and that it should not be confined to the spouse, parents and children of the deceased. In paragraphs 12 & 13 of the Judgment, the Apex Court observed:
...Every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realization of compensation and that is provided by Sections 110A to 110B of the Act. These provisions are in consonance with the principles of law of Torts that every injury must have a remedy. It is for the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to determine the compensation which appears to it to be just as provided in Section 110B of the Act and to specify the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid. The determination of the compensation payable and its apportionment as required by Section 110-B of the Act amongst the legal representative for whose benefit an application may be filed u/s 110-A of the Act have to be done in accordance with well known principles of law. We should remember that an Indian family brothers, sisters and brothers'' children and sometimes foster children live together and they are dependent upon the bread-winner is killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, there is no justification to deny them compensation relying upon the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which as we have already held has been substantially modified by the provisions contained in the Act in relation to cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents. We express our approval of the decision in Megjibhai Khimji Vira and Another Vs. Chaturbhai Taljabhai and Others, and held that the brother of a person who died in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to maintain a petition u/s 110-A of the Act if he is legal representative of the deceased.
We feel that the view taken by the Gujarat High Court is in consonance with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience having regard to the conditions of the Indian Society. Every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realization of compensation and that is provided by Sections 110-A to 110-F of the Act. These provisions are in consonance with the principles of law of torts that every injury must have a remedy. It is for the Motor Vehicles Accidents Tribunal to determine the compensation which appears to it to be just as provided in Section 110-B of the Act and to specify the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid. The determination of the compensation payable and its apportionment as required by Section 110-B of the Act amongst the legal representatives for whose benefit an application maybe filed u/s 110-A of the Act have to be done in accordance with well known principles of law. We should remember that in an Indian family brothers, sisters and brothers'' children and some times foster children live together and they are dependent upon the bread-winner of the family and if the breadwinner is killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, there is justification to deny them compensation relying upon the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which as we have already held has been substantially modified by the provisions contained in the Act in relation to cases arising out of motor vehicles accidents. We express our approval of the decision in Megjibhai Khimji Vira and Another Vs. Chaturbhai Taljabhai and Others, and hold that the brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to maintain a petition u/s 110-A of the Act if he is legal representative of the deceased.
The aforesaid decision of Supreme Court in case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad (supra) has also been followed by Supreme Court in case of Smt. Manjuri Bera Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Another, .
In view of above settled legal position, I am of the considered opinion that the claimants being the brother of deceased Ku. Chandini were entitled to maintain the application u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Claims Tribunal has not committed any illegality in the award impugned warranting interference of this Court in the instant appeal.
No other point was pressed before me. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself without notice to the other side. No order as to costs.