AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Binod Kumar Roy and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.—The solitary point urged by Sri S. C. Srlvastava holding brief of Sri S. K. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant on the question of admission of this appeal is that even though the claimants were not dependents of the deceased, thus the Judgment awarding compensation at the rate of 10% in their favour has been Illegally passed and thus the appeal be admitted.
When we asked a question to Mr. Srivastava as to what is the basis of making his submission, he referred to Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads thus : "where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased."
The Legislature has not used the word ''dependent'' rather it has used the words ''all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased''. The words "legal representative" have not been defined under the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, we are required to understand the aforementioned expression with reference to its ordinary dictionary meaning.
Firstly from the material as produced by the appellants. It appears that the deceased was the brother of the claimants whose parents had already died. The Supreme Court in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad Vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Another, , has held that ''legal representative'' ordinarily means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person or a person on whom the estate devolves on the death of an individual and hence legal representatives including brothers of the deceased victim of a motor accident who are entitled to get compensation u/s 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
We thus do not find any substance in the solitary submission made by Sri Srivastava and accordingly, dismiss this appeal in limine.