Smt. Laleshwari Bai vs Anil Khandelwal and Others

I.M. Quddusi, J.—Heard. The non-applicant No. 4-appellant herein has filed this miscellaneous appeal against the award dated 5-5-2008 passed by the learned Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) (for brevity the ''Claims Tribunal'') in Claim Case No. 14/07.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 18-6-2006 Bhuneshwar Sahu (since deceased) was returning along with non-applicant No. 1 from his native place Semra, Police Station Sihawa, District Dhamtari to Raipur on the motorcycle bearing registration number CG04-CF-9220. Bhuneshwar was traveling in the said motorcycle as pillion rider. At about 11.30 a.m. when they reached near Chitrakoot Dhaba, Abhanpur, the tyre of motorcycle got burst as a result the driver lost control over it and both of them fell down. Bhuneshwar Singh sustained injuries on his head and became unconscious. He was immediately taken to the Medical College Hospital, Raipur from where he was transferred to MMI Hospital, Raipur where he died during treatment. Report of the incident was lodged in the Police Station Abhanpur. The claimants, who are brothers of the deceased, have filed claim application arraying widow of the deceased as non-applicant No. 4 i.e. appellant herein, and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,95,000/- jointly and severally from the non-applicants No. 1 to 3 on the ground that on account of untimely death of the deceased they have suffered irreparable loss.

Non-applicants No. 1 to 3 had filed their respective written statements denying claim of the claimants.

Non-applicant No. 4, who is widow of the deceased, has also filed her written statement and in which she has claimed a sum of Rs. 5,95,000/- as compensation on the ground that she is only entitled for compensation being Class-1 heir of the deceased, as specified in the Schedule appended to Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

The Claims Tribunal vide impugned award not only dismissed claim of the claimants therein but also the claim of the appellant herein raised in the written statement.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal.

Perusal of the impugned award shows that though in answer to the Issue No. 4, which was regarding entitlement of the appellant herein to receive compensation for the death of deceased Bhuvneshwar Sahu, the Claims Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the non-applicant No. 4 is the Class-1 heir of deceased Bhuneshwar Sahu, however, rejected her prayer for grant of compensation on the ground that she has not filed any application along with requisite court fee for deleting her name from the array of non-applicants and impleading her as one of the claimants. Further, she has only contended in her written statement regarding payment of compensation to her being Class-1 legal heir of the deceased, but she did not file any separate application for compensation and therefore she is not entitled to get compensation for the death of the deceased.

Section 166(1) of the Act provides that 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 case may be.

According to proviso to this sub-section 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.

Thus, it is clear that legal representatives of the deceased can be impleaded as respondent to the claim application and there is no restriction in this regard.

As far as the finding of the Claims Tribunal that the appellant herein is not entitled for any compensation as she has not filed any separate application along with court fee for deleting her name from the array of non-applicants and impleading her as one of the claimants is concerned, the Scheme of compensation as it appears has been embodied in the Statute with an object to save vagrancy of the dependent of the victim. Further, Section 165 of the Act provides jurisdiction to the Court to determine as to whom the compensation is payable and for this, dependency is the prima facie factor.

In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the appellant is the widow of deceased and prior to death of the deceased, she was dependent on earning of the deceased and as such, she cannot be denied compensation merely on the ground that she has been impleaded as non-applicant, particularly when the object of the Scheme is to save vagrancy of the dependent of victim. Therefore, we are of the opinion that finding of the Claims Tribunal that since the appellant has been impleaded as non-applicant in the claim petition, therefore, she is not entitled for any compensation, is erroneous. The Claims Tribunal should have considered the question of grant of compensation to the widow of deceased, who was non-applicant No. 4 before it, but the same has not been done in the instant case and therefore; we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Claims Tribunal.

Even otherwise, Section 168 provides that on receipt of an application for compensation, the Claims Tribunal shall hold an inquiry into the claim. Section 169 prescribes procedure and powers of the Claims Tribunal and says that in holding any inquiry u/s 168, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. The Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed and the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the CPC. Besides this, in Rule 226 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 it has been provided that the Claims Tribunal shall conduct enquiry to ascertain the fact.

For the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal in part, set aside the impugned award, so far as it relates to rejection of claim of the appellant herein regarding grant of compensation, and remit the matter back to the Claims Tribunal for taking decision afresh in respect of the claim of the non-applicant No. 4/appellant herein in light of observations made in this order. Needless to mention that the Claims Tribunal shall provide opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence, if any, and amend the pleadings or to file documents or verify the documents already filed.

The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal concerned on 25th July, 2011. The Registry is directed to transmit the record of the claims tribunal concerned without further delay. No order as to costs.