G. Deivasigamani and Others vs Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd.

R. Banumathi, J.—An interesting question is involved in this appeal. By the impugned Judgment, the Tribunal has held that brother and

sisters of deceased Vanniyaraj are not entitled to compensation, as they are not his dependants.

Brief facts as set out in the claim petition are as follows:- On 07.12.1992 at about 1.55 p.m., the deceased boarded the Corporation bus TDN

- 01 N 1530 at Tambaram bus depot and at that time, the bus driver has started the bus negligently, which resulted in collision with the standing

PTC bus TN 01 N 1531, which caused fall of the deceased, resulting in fatal injuries to Vanniyaraj Vanniyaraj sustained fracture injuries in ribs,

chest injuries and multiple injuries. He was admitted in Government Hospital, Madras, where he succumbed to the injuries on 08.12.1992.

Alleging that death was due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver, wife of Vanniyaraj - Malliga has filed claim petition claiming

compensation of Rs. 5,13,300/-. During the pendency of the Petition, Malliga also passed away. Brother and sisters of deceased Vanniyaraj -

appellants, were impleaded. Under various heads - loss of dependency and love and affection, appellants have claimed compensation.

Tribunal has held that accident was due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver. However, the Tribunal held that the appellants are brother

and sisters of Vanniyaraj who were already married and were not dependent upon the deceased and held they are not entitled to compensation

and the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition.

Challenging the impugned order, the learned Counsel for the Appellant placed reliance upon Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation,

Ahmedabad Vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Another, and has contended that brother and sisters of a person who died in a motor vehicles

accident are entitled to maintain a Petition u/s 110-A, if they are legal representatives of the deceased. It was further submitted that the claim of

compensation need not be restricted to only legal heirs. Placing reliance upon The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Shri Laxman

Iyer and Another, , the learned Counsel further submitted that the deceased was aged 30 years at the time of accident and therefore, multiplier of

16 is to be adopted and contended that appellants would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,06,000/-.

The learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation supported the Judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that the appellants cannot be said to

be dependants on the deceased Vanniyaraj.

Similar question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in AIR 2007 SCW 1962 Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. in

which the question involved was whether married daughter would be entitled to compensation. Observing that liability in such cases would be

limited to ''no fault liability'' and the married daughter would be entitled to recover compensation of ''no fault liability'',the Supreme Court has held

as under:

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 sued 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 it the definition of legal representative under the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, i.e. u/s 2(1)(g).

As observed by this Court in Custodian of Branches of Banco National Ultramarino Vs. Nalini Bai Naique, , the definition contained in Section

2(11) CPC is inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is not confined to legal heirs only. Instead it stipulates that a person who may or may

not be legal heir competent to inherit the property of the deceased can represent the estate of the deceased person. It includes heirs as well as

persons who represent the estate even without title either as executors or administrators in possession of the estate of the deceased. All such

persons would be covered by the expression ''legal representative''. As observed in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad Vs.

Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Another, a legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident

and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child.

There are several factors which have to be noted. The liability u/s 140 of the Act does not cease because there is absence of dependency. The

right to file a claim application has to be considered in the background of right to entitlement. While assessing the quantum, the multiplier system is

applied because of deprivation of dependency. In other words, multiplier is a measure. There are three stages while assessing the question of

entitlement. Firstly, the liability of the person who is liable and the person who is to indemnify the liability, if any. Next is the quantification and

Section 166 is primarily in the nature of recovery proceedings. As noted above, liability in terms of Section 140 of the Act does not cease because

of absence of dependency.

Judged in that background where a legal representative who is not dependent files an application for compensation, the quantum cannot be less

than the liability referable to Section 140 of the Act. Therefore, even if there is no losss of dependency the claimant if he or she is a legal

representative will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall be not less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act. The

appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There will be no order as to costs. We record our appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Shri

Jayant Bhushan, the learned Amicus Curiae.

Concurring with the view of Justice Arijit Pasayat, Justice S.H.Kapadia has clearly held that the liability in such cases would be limited only to

the limited liability and held as under:

In my opinion, ""No Fault Liability"", envisaged in Section 140 of the said Act, is distinguishable from the rule of ""Strict Liability"". In the former,

the compensation amount is fixed. It is Rs. 50,000/- in cases of death [Section 140(2)]. It is a statutory liability. It is an amount which can be

deducted from the final amount awarded by the Tribunal. Since, the amount is a fixed amount/crystallized amount, the same has to be considered

as part of the estate of the deceased. In the present case, the deceased was an earning member. The statutory compensation could constitute part

of his estate. His legal representative, namely, his daughter has inherited his estate. She was entitled to inherit his estate. In the circumstances, she

Written Statement entitled to receive compensation under ""No Fault Liability"" u/s 140 of the said Act. That section is a Code by itself within the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The same principle was also reiterated in AIR 2007 SCW 4840 Hafizun Begum v. Md.Ikram Heque and Ors. Following the decision of the

Supreme Court, appellants being brother and sisters, they would be entitled to receive compensation only under ''no fault liability'', in terms of

Section 140 of the Act.

It is held that the appellants would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 50,000/- under ''no fault liability'' in terms of Section 140 of the Act.

That amount of Rs. 50,000/- is payable with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the Petition. The order of the Tribunal in MCOP

46/1993 is set aside and the appeal is partly allowed. The compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- along with accrued interest shall be apportioned

equally amongst the appellants.