2. The claimant, as an heir to the estate of Venkatachalam, who died in the motor accident, which took place on 28.5.1989, made a claim of Rs. 1,00,000.
3. In the claim petition, it is stated that the deceased is the claimant's father's brother's son. But, in the evidence, the claimant had deposed that the deceased Venkatachalam is his brother's son and they are living as a joint family and the properties were not divided among themselves. It is also stated that the parents of the deceased had died while he was young and even thereafter, they were all living together. The respondents have denied the relationship claimed by the claimant to the deceased and further stated that the definition of ‘legal representative’ as stated in Civil Procedure Code is applicable to the Motor Vehicles Act also and the claimant is a Hindu and, therefore, the Hindu Succession Act would be applicable.
4. The claimant, in the claim petition, has stated that the deceased is his father's brother's son and as such, he is not a class I heir. His further claim is that the deceased is his brother's son and he would come under entry 7 in class I heirs. The claimant also filed a legal heir certificate Exh. P-13, wherein the relationship of the deceased is stated as ‘uncle’.
It is also stated, in the said certificate that the same was issued only to receive the compensation amount. As there are contradictions between the statement made in the petition and the evidence given, the Tribunal has held that the claimant has not proved his correct relationship to the deceased and, therefore, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed.
5. The learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the claimant is the only heir of the deceased Venkatachalam, entitled to receive the compensation. It is further submitted that in the absence of any rival claim, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim made by the appellant.
6. On the contrary, the learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, namely, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., has submitted that the claimant having failed to prove his correct relationship to the deceased, is not entitled to the claim at all.
7. Now let us see, whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation.
8. The claimant's specific case is that he and the deceased were the members of the joint family and the joint family properties were also not divided. Of course, in the petition, he has stated that the deceased is his father's brother's son and in the evidence, he has stated that the deceased is his bother's son. In the legal heir certificate, it is stated that the deceased is the uncle of the claimant. Though there are 3 versions about the relationship of the deceased to the claimant, it is nobody's case that the claimant is not at all related to the deceased. As per the claim made in the petition that the deceased is his father's brother's son and he would not fall under class I heir of the Hindu Succession Act. In the evidence, he has stated that the deceased is his brother's son and if that be so, the claimant would come under entry 4 of class II heirs. In the legal heir certificate, the relationship of the deceased to the claimant is stated as uncle. Then the claimant would come under entry 7 of class II heirs. It is not the case of the respondents that the claimant is not at all related to the deceased. That being so, we could safely come to the conclusion that the deceased is related to the claimant and vice versa. It is in evidence that on the death of Venkatachalam, there is a loss to the estate, to which the claimant is entitled.
9. Now let us consider, who is entitled to apply for the compensation in a motor accident case. In our case, the accident took place on 28.5.1989 and, therefore, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is applicable. Section 110-A of the Act states as follows:
“Application for compensation.— (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in subsection (1) of Section 110 may be made—
(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or
(aa) by the owner of the property; or
(b) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or
(c) 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.”
10. The clauses (b) and (c) of Section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) provide that an application for compensation may be made where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, or 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. Proviso to Section 110-A states,
“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”.
The expression ‘legal representative” has not been defined under Motor Vehicles Act, 1989. But rule 2(c) of the Madras Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Ruks 1961, states that the term ‘legal representatives’ occurring in Section 110-A is said[to have the same meaning assigned to under Section 2(11) of the Civil Procedure Code. Section 2(11) of Civil Procedure Code defines ‘legal representative’ as the person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estates the deceased and where a party sues or in sued in a representative character the per son on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued”. The said definition, no doubt, in terms does no apply to a case before the Claims Tribunal but it has to be stated that even in ordinary parlance the said expression is understood almost in the same way in which it is defined in the Civil Procedure Code. A 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. We can also state that the term ‘legal representative’ occurring in Section 110-A of the Act has wider impact than the definition of the terms contained in Section 2(11) of Civil Procedure Code. Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 provide that all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to make an application compensation before the Claims Tribunal for the death of the deceased on account of a motor vehicle accident. Proviso Section 110-A of the Act gains some significance. It provides that the application for compensation shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased. Clause (b) of Section 110-A states, application for compensation may be made, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased and clause (c) of Section 110-A provides that any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased can make such an application. Both the person or persons who can make an application for compensation and the persons for whose benefit such an application can be made are thus indicated in Section 110-A of the Act.
11. Now, we have to consider, whether the claimant would fall under the category of ‘legal representative’, as stated under clauses (b) and (c) of Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
12. A similar question arose in the case of Perumal v. G. Ellusamy Reddiar, 1974 ACJ 182 (Madras), wherein the Division Bench of this Court had dealt with the definition of ‘legal representative’ under Section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and also the definition available under Section 2(11) of Civil Procedure Code, in extenso and under Rule 2(c) of the Madras Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1961. ‘Legal representative’ shall have the meaning assigned to it under clause (11) of Section 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The definition given under Section 2(11) of Civil Procedure Code is wide. It takes in not only administrators, executors and heirs, but all other persons who represent the estate of the deceased. The definition also says that the terms include even persons who intermeddle with the estate of the deceased. Then the Division Bench went on considering the definition available in Fatal Accidents Act and also in Legal Representatives Act and opined that Sections 110 to 110-F of the Act (Motor Vehicles Act, 1939) being only procedural in character and have nothing to do with the substantive rights and liabilities of parties, do not make any reference to either loss of benefit or loss to the estate as heads on which compensation can be claimed in the case of a person whose death was caused by a motor accident. It is further held that under Section 110-A of the Act, in the case of death of a person, compensation could be claimable not only for the loss to the estate, but also loss of benefit to the dependants as contemplated under Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act. The term ‘legal representative’, therefore, should necessarily include not only persons who represent the estate of the deceased (who can claim loss to the estate of the deceased) but also next-of-kin who are mentioned as dependants under Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act, who can claim compensation for loss of benefit to themselves, whether they represent the estate of the deceased or not. In other words, it should take in all persons who can maintain an action under the Legal Representatives’ Suits Act (or under Section 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act, as the case may be) as well as those who can maintain an action under Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act. That being so, one cannot restrict the meaning of the term ‘legal representative’ occurring in Section 110-A of the Act as that in Section 2(11) of Civil Procedure Code.
13. In the case of Gujarat State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, 1987 ACJ 561 (SC), the Supreme Court considered the term ‘legal representative’ in the background of English Fatal Accidents Act, 1846 and the Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and other Acts including the Royal Commission Report, 1978 and also relied upon the earlier decision of the Apex Court in the case of Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan, 1977 ACJ 118 (SC), and considered Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the definition available under Section 2(11) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. There were divergent opinions among the High Courts in India, as regards the maintainability of action under Section 110-A of the Act by persons other than the wife, husband, parent and child of the person who dies on account of a motor vehicle accident. All these cases were considered by the High Court of Gujarat in its decision in Megjibhai Khimji Vira v. Chaturbhai Taljabhai, 1977 ACJ 253 (Gujarat), wherein it was held, “The first set of cases are those which are referred to in para 5 of the above decision which lay down that every claim application for compensation arising out of a fatal accident would be governed by the substantive provisions in Sections 1-A and 2 of the 1855 Act and no dependant of the deceased other than the wife, husband, parent or child would be entitled to commence an action for damages against the tortfeasors. Amongst these cases are: P.B Kader v. Thatchamma, AIR 1970 Ker 241; Dewan Hari Chand v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1973 ACJ 87 (Delhi). The second group of cases are those referred to in para 6 of the decision of the Gujarat High Court. They are: Perumal v. G. Ellusamy Reddiar, 1974 ACJ 182 (Madras) and The Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chellu Hanumantha Rao, 1975 ACJ 344 (AP). These cases lay down that the compensation payable under Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 is restricted to relatives of the deceased who are entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased. The third group of cases are those referred to in para 7 of the judgment of the Gujarat High Court. They are: Mohammed Habibullah v. K. Seethammal, 1966 ACJ 349 (Madras); Veena Kumari Kohli v. Punjab Roadways, 1967 ACJ 297 (P&H) and Ishwari Devi v. Union of India, 1968 ACJ 141 (Delhi), which take the view that claim for compensation arising out of the use of a motor vehicle would be exclusively governed by the provisions of Sections 110-A to 110-F of the Act and bears no connection to claims under the 1855 Act and the Claims Tribunal need not follow the principles laid down under the latter Act. Having considered all the three sets of decisions referred to above, Ahmadi, J. (as he then was) who wrote the judgment in Megjibhai Khimji Vira v. Chaturbhai Taljabhai, 1977 ACJ 253 (Gujarat), came to the conclusion that an application made by the nephews of the deceased who died on account of a motor vehicle accident was clearly maintainable under Section 110-A of the Act. After referring to these cases, the Supreme Court had accepted the view that was taken by the Gujarat High Court, which is in consonance with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience having regard to the conditions of the Indian society. Every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realisation of compensation and that is provided by Sections 110-A to 110-F of the Act. These provi sions are in consonance with the principles of law of Torts that every injury must have a remedy.
14. As we have already seen that claim ant and the deceased were the members of the joint family and there is a loss to the estate on the death of Venkatachalam, we are of the opinion that the claimant is entitled for compensation. The Tribunal has not arrived at any amount of compensation as payable to the claimant, in view of i's finding that the claimant is not related to the deceased. But, now as we have arrived at the conclusion that claimant is relatec to the deceased, he is entitled to the claim on the ground of loss caused to the estate Taking into consideration overall aspects of the case and as there is no material that the claimant is not at all related to the deceased, the contradictions pointed out by the respondents could be brushed aside and in order to meet the ends of justice, we feel a sum of Rs. 50,000 could be awarded towards loss to estate on the death of the deceased Venkatachalam.
15. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed and the award and the decree passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 50,000 which shall carry interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit/realisation and the said amount shall be paid by the respondent No. 4 herein. No costs.
Appeal allowed.
Comments