Sunithakumari vs C.J.Joby S/o Joy

M.R.Anitha, J

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') with a limited relief of setting aside the direction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad (for short 'the Tribunal') to produce the legal heir ship certificate by the first petitioner/1st appellant for disbursement of the amount awarded.

Appellants/claimants in O.P.(MV) No.944/2007 are the wife and daughter of deceased P.V.Rajan. Another O.P.(MV) has been filed by the parents of the deceased as O.P.(MV) No.62/2001 claiming compensation out of the death of their deceased son P.V.Rajan.

Tribunal jointly tried both the claim petitions. Death of the deceased alleged to have caused due to a motor accident occurred on 01.06.2000, while the deceased was travelling in a motor car bearing Reg.No.KL-4-G-1328 through Karuvaka – Vazhiyempalam public road, hit by a tempo van bearing Registration No.KL-07 K 502. Since the death due to accident and the liability of the respondents are not under challenge, I am not going further into the pleadings of the parties in the above cases.

The main dispute between the parties was with regard to the relationship of the appellants with deceased Raju @ Rajan. The claimants in O.P.(MV) No.62/2001 contended that the deceased Raju died as a bachelor but the appellants claimed that they are wife and daughter of deceased Raju. However, the dispute between the parties have been amicably settled and as per paragraph No.18 of the award, a compromise petition has been filed by the parties stating that all the parties are entitled to get compensation in equal proportion. Accordingly, compensation amount was apportioned equally among the claimants.

But, while making direction regarding disbursement of the amount among the claimants in O.P.(MV) No.944/2007, a direction was made to disburse the amount on production of legal heir ship certificate.

Aggrieved by the said direction, they came up in appeal before this Court.

Notice was duly served upon the first respondent but there was no representation. Adv.P.K.Manoj Kumar entered appearance on behalf of the second respondent/insurer and respondents 3 and 4 were deleted from the party array as per the order in I.A.No.01/2021 dated 22.12.2021.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the second respondent.

The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the direction of the Tribunal to produce legal heir ship certificates of the appellants is sustainable in law.

Learned counsel for the appellants relied on the decision of a learned Single of this Court in Sreerangan v. New India  Assurance  Co.Ltd,  Kunnamkulam  and  Another  : 2014(4) KHC 299 : 2014(4) KLT 378.  Paragraph 13 of the said decision is relevant in this context to be extracted, which reads as follows:

“What emerges hence is the clear principle upon which, the entitlement to claim compensation, on the death of a person in a motor accident, is to be adjudicated upon. Any 'legal representative' including a 'legal heir' and not confined to a subsisting status governed by the laws of succession, would be entitled to claim compensation; provided he/she sustains an injury from the death caused by the motor accident; the injury being not one to be understood as one caused to the body of the individual involved in an accident.”

In that case, father of the deceased, who is the petitioner in the above O.P.(MV), approached the Tribunal along with his wife claiming loss of dependency on the death of his son in a motor vehicle accident. Hence it was found that he is entitled to the sum awarded, as apportioned to himself in the award, even without the production of a legal heir ship certificate and accordingly the impugned order was set aside directing the Tribunal to disburse of the amount to the petitioner/father with interest.

It is also relevant in this context to quote N.Jayasree & Ors. v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. 2021 (6) KHC 163. In that case, the question arose whether mother-in-law is a legal representative of the deceased. In that case, the Apex Court dealt with the meaning of legal representative and it has been held that legal representative means a person who in law is entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased and includes any person or persons in whom legal right to receive compensatory benefit vests. A legal representative may also include any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased. Such person does not necessarily have to be a legal heir. Legal heirs are the persons who are entitled to inherit the surviving estate of the deceased. A legal heir may also be a legal representative. The Apex Court gave a wider interpretation to the term legal representative for the purpose of Chapter XII of MV Act and it was held that it should not be confined only to mean the spouse, parents and children of the deceased. Paragraph 21 of the said decision is relevant in this context to extract which reads as follows:

“Coming to the facts of the present case, the fourth appellant was the mother-in-law of the deceased. Materials on record clearly establish that she was residing with the deceased and his family members. She was dependent on him for her shelter and maintenance. It is not uncommon in Indian Society for the mother-in-law to live with her daughter and son-in-law during her old age and be dependent upon her son-in-law for her maintenance. Appellant No.4 herein may not be legal heir of the deceased, but she certainly suffered on account of his death. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that she is a “legal representative” under S.166 of the MV Act and is entitled to maintain a claim petition.”

So, from the above, the Apex Court had declared that any person though not a legal heir who suffered on account of death and living as a dependent on the deceased is a legal representative under Section 166 of the Act and entitled to maintain a claim petition. In the present case, the appellants/claimants are alleged to be the wife and daughter of the deceased. Though the parents in O.P.(MV) No.62/2007 contended that he died as a bachelor, the award passed would go to show that the parties ultimately compromised the matter and agreed to apportion the compensation among them equally. Hence, in the present case, the direction of the Tribunal to produce the legal heir ship certificate by the appellants/claimants is illegal and unsustainable and is hereby set aside.

In the result, the appeal is disposed of directing the Tribunal to disburse the amount to the appellants/claimants, as per the award forthwith.