Jamna Devi vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This appeal on behalf of the claimant Jamna Devi is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, (hereinafter called ''the Tribunal''), dated January 5,1983, whereby she was awarded a sum of Rs. 24,000/- by way of compensation by it on account of the death of her son Raj Kumar.

As regards the facts, there is no dispute between the parties. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was too inadequate. The claims of the other minor dependents who were solely dependent upon the deceased were wrongly rejected.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this appeal.

The claims of the brother and sister of a deceased could not be considered in view of the presence of their mother Jamna Devi; she being a Class I heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The matter stands concluded by the decision of this Court in Hansraj and Others Vs. Neelam Chopra and Others, . In the present case, the Appellant Jamna Devi''s annual dependency was held to be Rs. 2,400/-. The multiplier of 10 (ten) was applied and, thus, she was awarded a sum of Rs. 24,000/- by way of compensation. Thus, she being the mother of the deceased has been rightly awarded the said compensation.

As regards the brother and sister of the deceased, it has been held by this Court in Hansraj and Others Vs. Neelam Chopra and Others, , that an estate of a Hindu is inheritable in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, Section 8 of which deals with the intestate succession to a male. According to this section, brothers and sisters fall in category (b). By virtue of the said section, person falling in category (a) excludes the persons mentioned in category (b). As such in the presence of successors of category (a), the brothers or sister could not even lay claim to the estate of the deceased and, therefore, could not be considered to be such legal representative as could file an application for compensation in terms of Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

In the present case, the mother of the deceased belongs to category (a) of the successors and in her presence, the brother and the sister of the deceased are incompetent even to lay claim to the estate of the deceased. In this view of the matter, this appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.