Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 653 (JHR)

Sonia Devi And Gandori Mahto v. Sanjit Kumar

2007-08-13

DABBIRU GANESHRAO PATNAIK, M.Y.EQBAL

body2007
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This appeal by the claimants-appellants is directed against the judgment and award dated 13.8.2004 passed by the Additional Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad in Title (MV) Suit No. 03 of 2001 whereby he has dismissed the case holding that the claimants are not entitled to compensation. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: The deceased, Yadu Mahto, and his wife Smt. Pemia Devi, were travelling on a maxi taxi and they were going to Topchanchi from Singhdih. As soon as the maxi taxi reached near Satkira village, it dashed with a truck bearing Registration No. WB-41-6275, as a result of which, both the husband and the wife died on the spot. 3. The claimants-appellants filed two claim applications for grant of compensation - one for the death of their son Yadu Mahto and, another for the death of their daughter-in-law Smt. Pemia Devi. The claim cases were contested by the respondents. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, allowed the claim application for payment of compensation on account of death of the son of the appellants, but dismissed the claim application wherein compensation was claimed for the death of daughter-in-law of the appellants. Hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties and perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal took the view that the claimants, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, are not the legal representatives within the meaning of Section 110-A corresponding to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1982 reads as under: 166. The Tribunal took the view that the claimants, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, are not the legal representatives within the meaning of Section 110-A corresponding to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1982 reads as under: 166. 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 form the accident, by al 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 the case may be: Provided that where al 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 carried 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 under Section 140 of made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the appellant. (3) xxxxxxxxx (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. 5. (3) xxxxxxxxx (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. 5. From reading of the proviso to the aforesaid provision, it is manifestly clear that in a case 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. 6. The Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Frabhatbhai and Anr. has elaborately discussed the issue as to who are the legal representatives within the meaning of Section 11-A of the Act. Their Lordships observed: 13. We feel that the view taken by the Gujarat High Court 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 provisions are in consonance with the principles of law of torts that every injury must have a remedy. It is for the Motor Vehicles Accidents Tribunal to determine the compensation which appears to it to be just as provided in Section 110-B of the Act and to specify the person pr persons to whom compensation shall be paid. The determination of the compensation payable and its apportionment as required by Section 110-B of the Act amongst the legal representatives for whose benefit an application may be filed under Section 110-A of the Act have to be done in accordance with well-known principles of law. The determination of the compensation payable and its apportionment as required by Section 110-B of the Act amongst the legal representatives for whose benefit an application may be filed under Section 110-A of the Act have to be done in accordance with well-known principles of law. We should remember that in an Indian family brothers, sisters and brothers children and some times foster children live together and they are dependent upon the bread-winner of the family and if the bread-winner is killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, there is no justification to deny them compensation relying upon the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which as we have already held has been substantially modified by the provisions contained in the Act in relation to cases arising out of motor vehicles accidents, We express our approval of the decision in Megjibhai Khimji Vira v. Chaturbhai Taljabhai and hold that the brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to maintain a petition under Section 110-A of the Act if he is a legal representative of the deceased. 7. Although, we are of the view that the claimants, who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, are the legal representatives of the deceased lady within the meaning of the Act but the father and mother of the deceased lady are also the legal representatives and are entitled to compensation for the death of the their daughter. It is, therefore, a fit case where the father, mother and other persons who are the legal representatives from the parental side of the deceased, should be impleaded as respondents-opposite parties in the case so that their interest may not be jeopardized. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and award and, remit the matter back to the Claims Tribunal to decide the case afresh after giving liberty to the claimant to implead other legal representatives of the deceased as respondents-opposite parties in the case. D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 9. I agree.