Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2868 (RAJ)

U. I. I. Co Ltd. v. Magna

2019-11-19

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard finally. 2. This misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company claiming the following reliefs: It is therefore, prayed that the judgment and award passed by the learned M.A.C.T. Bhilwara dated 25.7.2009 may kindly be declared illegal and be set aside and the appellant company be absolved from the payment of compensation granted to the claimants of the deceased. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the appellant company. 3. An unfortunate accident had happened on 19.01.2003 at night, when deceased Govind, while travelling on moped bearing registration No.RJ06 6M 1104 from Dhoolkera to Mandal, was crushed by a Truck bearing registration No.HR55 0624 causing injuries to Govind, as a result whereof, he died. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the proposition raised by the claimants was that deceased Govind was their adopted son, but the same has never been proved by the claimants, and thus, their claim need to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants however, submits that it is clear from the record of the case that there was no surviving family member of deceased Govind, and that, the nearest relatives of deceased Govind, as it is, were the claimants. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants further submits that as per Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the application for compensation can be made by any legal representative, and it is not a disputed position in the present case that the claimants are legal representatives of the deceased. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants, for the purpose of fortifying his submissions, has relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad Vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another, (1987) ACJ 561 , relevant portion whereof reads as follows: 10. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants, for the purpose of fortifying his submissions, has relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad Vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another, (1987) ACJ 561 , relevant portion whereof reads as follows: 10. Clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of section 110-A of the Act provide that an application for compensation arising out of an accident 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 all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. The proviso to subsection (1) of section 110-A provides 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. The expression 'legal representative' has not been defined in the Act. Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 defines 'legal representative' as a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. The above definition, no doubt, in terms does not 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 Code of Civil 'Procedure. 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. 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. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 110-A of the Act authorises all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased to make an application for compensation before the Claims Tribunal for the death of the deceased on account of a motor vehicle accident and clause (c) of that sub-section authorises any agent duly authorised by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased to make it. The proviso to sub-section (1) of section 110-A of the Act appears to be of 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. Section 110-A(1) of the Act thus expressly states that (i) an application for compensation may be made by the legal representatives of the deceased or their agent and (ii) that such application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives. Both the persons or person who can make an application for compensation and the persons for whose benefit such application can be made are thus indicated in section 110-A of the Act. This section in a way is a substitute to the extent indicated above for the provisions of section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which provides that "every such action or suit shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent and child, if any, of the person whose death shall have been so caused, and shall be brought by and in the name of the executor, administrator or representative of the person deceased." While the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 provides that such suit shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent and child of the deceased, section 110-A(1) of the Act says that the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of the legal representatives of the deceased. A legal representative in a given case need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child. A legal representative in a given case need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child. It is further seen from section 110- B of the Act that the Claims Tribunal is authorised to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid. This provision takes the place of the third para- graph of section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act. 1855 which provides that in every such action, the Court may give such damages as it may think proportioned to the loss resulting from such death to the parties respectively, for whom and for whose benefit such action shall be 'brought. Persons for whose benefit such an application can be made and the manner in which the compensation awarded may be distributed amongst the persons for whose benefit the application is made are dealt with by section 110-A and section 110-B of the Act and to that extent the provisions of the Act do supersede the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 in so far as motor vehicles accidents are concerned. These provisions are not merely procedural provisions. They substantively affect the rights of the parties. As the right of action created by the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 was "new in its species, new in its quality, new in its principles, in every way new" the right given to the legal representatives under the Act to file an application for compensation for death due to a motor vehicle accident is equally new and an enlarged one. This new right cannot be hedged in by all the limitations of an action under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. New situations and new dangers require new strategies and new remedies. 8. Reliance has also been placed on Mantford Brothers of St. Gabriel and another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, (2014) ACJ 667 . 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case along with the precedent law cited at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that since it is an undisputed position that the claimants were the legal representatives of the deceased, being his only surviving relatives, therefore, they were entitled to maintain the claim. The words used legal representative in Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 coupled with the precedent law of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad Vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another (supra) and Mantford Brothers of St. Gabriel and another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another (supra), leaves no space for any ambiguity in believing that the legal representatives could have maintained the claim. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, no interference is called for in the present misc. appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. All the pending applications also stand dismissed. Record of the learned Tribunal be sent back forthwith.