AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Rajeswaran, J.—This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 14.11.2003, passed in I.A. No. 1141/2003 in M.C.O.P.
No. 737/2000, on the file of the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and District Judge, Perambalur.
The unsuccessful proposed parties who filed I.A. No. 1141/2003 in M.C.O.P. No. 737/2000 are the Revision Petitioners.
The Revision Petitioners filed I.A. No. 1141/2003 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC to implead themselves in the main petition filed by 1st
respondent herein for claiming compensation for the death of her (1st respondent) husband, by contending that they are the daughter-in-law and
grand-daughter of the deceased husband of the 1st respondent herein. It was resisted by the 1st respondent (claimant) on the ground that her son
Gandhi died on 26.10.1996, long after the death of her husband who died on 11.1.1990 and therefore they are not dependents of her deceased
husband.
The trial court accepted this contention and also held that the revision petitioners are not class I heirs of the deceased and the petition has been
filed belatedly after a lapse of 12 years from the date of death of the husband of the 1st respondent herein. Aggrieved by this order, the above
revision petition has been filed.
Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the filing of an application arising out of an accident. Section 166 is extracted for better
appreciation:
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, as the case may be; or
(d) by any agent duly authorised 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
(3) ***
(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under Sub-section (6) of Section 158 as an application for
compensation under this Act.
Every Legal Representative who suffers on account of death of a person due to motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realisation of
compensation and that is provided by Sub-clause 1(c) and (d) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is for the tribunal to determine
the compensation which appears to be just and to specify the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid. The said Section contains a
proviso, which says 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. This proviso to Section 166 has been introduced obviously for the purpose of
avoiding multifarious claims in respect of the same accident. If one of the main legal representatives can file a claim petition without reference to
others then there is a possibility of many claim petitions being filed in respect of the same accident. It is with a view to avoid such a situation and
also to ensure that one legal representative does not get the compensation and run away with it without the knowledge of the other legal
representatives the proviso has been introduced.
Therefore the order of the tribunal is patently wrong as the same is not in consonance with the letter and spirit of Section 166 of the Act, 1988
and the tribunal ought not to have rejected the impleading petition on the basis of limitation and dependency.
Hence the order of the tribunal dated 14.11.2003 is set aside and the tribunal is directed to implead the revision petitioners in M.C.O.P. No.
737/2000 and proceed to determine the compensation in accordance with law.
Considering the fact that the accident took place on 11.1.90 and the claim petition was taken on file in the year 2000, it is appropriate to direct
the tribunal to dispose of M.C.O.P. No. 737/2000 within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order preferably on day-to-day
basis. In the result this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. C.M.P. No. 21038/2003 is closed.