Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 657 (MAD)

Manimekalai v. Chinnaponnu & Others

2008-02-25

A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN

body2008
Judgment :- This revision has been preferred against the Order passed in I.A.No.686 of 2007 in M.C.O.P.No.377 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem. M.C.O.P.No.377 of 1999 was filed by one Ramasamy for compensation, for the injury, he had sustained in the accident claiming a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. In M.C.O.P.No.377 of 1999, an award was passed on 15. 2004 for a sum of Rs.3,05,671/-. After passing of the award, the said Ramasamy died on 212. 2004. I.A.No.1275 of 2005 was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Ramasamy i.e., wife and children for impleading them as Legal Representatives of the deceased Ramasamy in M.C.O.P.No.377 of 1999 and to array the mother of the deceased Ramasamy/revision petitioner herein as 8th respondent in M.C.O.P.No.377 of 1999. 2. The first respondent herein had filed I.A.No.686 of 2007 claiming a sum of Rs.1,13,607 towards her share as Legal representatives of the deceased Ramasamy, out of the total deposit amount of Rs.4,54,428/-, while impleading the wife and children of the deceased Ramasamy as respondents in I.A.No.686 of 2007. The said application was resisted by the other legal representatives of the deceased Ramasamy contending that the petitioner in I.A.No.686 of 2007/the mother of the deceased Ramasamy is not entitled to claim a sum of Rs.1,13,607/- as that of one of the legal representatives of the deceased Ramasamy. But as a dependent, she is entitled to a sum of Rs.22,500/-(Rs.15,000 + Rs.7,500/-)only. 3. Negativing the contentions of the respondents in I.A.No.686 of 2007, the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate) Salem had allowed the application filed by the mother of the deceased Ramasamy, holding that as a Class I heir of the deceased Ramasamy, the petitioner in I.A.No.686 of 2007/the mother of the deceased Ramasamy is also entitled to a sum of Rs.1,13,607/-as that of the wife and children of the deceased Ramasamy. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, the first respondent in I.A.No.686 of 2007 has preferred this revision. 4. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, the first respondent in I.A.No.686 of 2007 has preferred this revision. 4. When the civil revision petition was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner Thiru N.Manoharan, producing a Judgment reported in Gujarat State Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad-v- Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai (AIR 1987 Supreme Court, 1690) contended that in a case of death in a motor accident,all the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to a remedy for realisation of the compensation, as provided under Sections 110 A to 110F of the Motor Vehicles Act and the learned counsel would contend that the petitioner in I.A.No.686 of 2007 in M.C.O.P.No.377 of 1999 being the mother of the deceased Ramasamy is not entitled to claim a share as a legal heir as that of the wife and children of the deceased Ramasamy. The relevant observation in the said Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court relevant for the purpose of deciding this revision runs as follows: "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 S.110A to 110F 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 S.110-B of the Act to specify the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid. The determination of the compensation payable and its apportionment as required by S.110B of the Act amongst the legal representatives for whose benefit an application may be filed under S.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 S.110B of the Act amongst the legal representatives for whose benefit an application may be filed under S.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 sometimes 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." There cannot be two opinion with regard to the principles laid down in the above ratio. In the abovesaid Judgment, the legal representatives have filed the claim application, after the death of the deceased whereas in the case on hand, the deceased Ramasamy had filed M.C.O.P.No.377 of 1999 claiming the compensation, for the injury, he had sustained in the accident. After an award was passed in M.C.O.P.No.377 of 1999, Ramasamy died. So, after the death of Ramasamy, all the legal heirs of the said Ramasamy are entitled to a share in the award passed which has become the estate of Ramasamy, after his death. Under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter:- .(a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class I of the Schedule; .(b) Secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class II of the Schedule; .(c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; and .(d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased. As per Section 10 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property of an intestate shall be divided among the heirs in Class I of the Schedule in accordance with the following Rules:- Rule 1. - The intestates widow, or if there are more widows than one, all the widows together, shall take one share. As per Section 10 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property of an intestate shall be divided among the heirs in Class I of the Schedule in accordance with the following Rules:- Rule 1. - The intestates widow, or if there are more widows than one, all the widows together, shall take one share. Rule 2:- The surviving sons and daughters and the mother of the intestate shall each take one share. Rule 3:- The heirs in the branch of each pre-deceased son or each pre-deceased daughter of the intestate shall take between them one share. Rule 4:- The distribution of the share referred to in rule 3:- (i) among the heirs in the branch of the pre-deceased son shall be so made that his widow(or widow together) and the surviving sons and daughters get equal portions, and the branch of his pre-deceased sons gets the same portion; .(ii) among the heirs in the branch of the pre-deceased daughter shall be so made that the surviving sons and daughters get equal portions." So, the petitioner in I.A.No.686 of 2007 in M.C.O.P.No.377 of 1999 being the mother of the deceased Ramasamy is entitled to a share to that of the wife and children of the deceased Ramasamy as correctly held by the Court below. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the mother/the petitioner in I.A.No.686 of 2007 had filed I.A.No.36 of 2007 for the same relief which was dismissed for non prosecution and that I.A.No.686 of 2007 is hit by the principles of res judicata. But the said contention was not raised before the Court below in his counter to I.A.NO.686 of 2007. Under such circumstances, in this revision, we cannot go into the question as to whether I.A.No.686 of 2007 is barred under the principle of res judicata or not? Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate) Salem in I.A.No.686 of 2007 in M.C.O.P.No.377 of 1999. 6. In fine, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is also dismissed.