Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 865 (AP)

Byraram Ajay Kumar v. Bandela Reddy Rekha

2025-07-17

SUMATHI JAGADAM

body2025
ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the claim petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, in I.A.No.8 of 2023 in M.V.O.P.No.465 of 2019, whereby and where under the application filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, who are the wife and son of the claim petitioner respectively, seeking to implead them as respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the claim petition, was allowed. 2. The petitioner, being unsound due to the road accident, is represented by his father, Byraram Sundar Rao. The petitioner met with a road accident on 06.03.2019 at Vempalli Cheruvu Village. The petitioner has suffered multiple injuries and was initially admitted to Badvel Hospital. He was then shifted to Sunrise Multi-Speciality Hospital in Kadapa. The petitioner has preferred the claim petition, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , claiming compensation of Rs.70.00 lakhs together with interest at 16% per annum. It appears from the record that the petitioner's father has filed I.A.No.679 of 2022 with a prayer to permit him to prosecute the case on behalf of his son and to give evidence on his behalf. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petition filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Order I Rule 10 of CPC is not maintainable either in law or on facts. He further contended that the question of bringing respondent Nos.1 and 2 on record as legal heirs of the petitioner would arise only after the death of the petitioner. Since the claim petitioner being mentally unsound is represented by his father and the matter pertains to payment of compensation, the presence of respondent Nos.1 and 2 is not required for adjudication. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Globe Ground India Employees Union Vs. Lufthansa German Airlines , (2019) 15 SCC 273 . The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Globe Ground India Employees Union Vs. Lufthansa German Airlines , (2019) 15 SCC 273 . The Apex Court held in para 10 of its judgment as follows: “Whenever an application is filed in the adjudication proceedings either before the Industrial Tribunal in a reference made under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or any other legal proceedings, for impleadment of a party who is not a party to the proceedings, what is required to be considered is whether such party which is sought to be impleaded is either necessary or property party to decide the lis. The expressions ”necessary” or “proper” parties have been considered time and again and explained in several decisions. The two expressions have separate and different connotations. It is fairly well settled that necessary party, is one without whom no order can be made effectively. Similarly, a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceedings.” i) The trial Court, without verifying the facts and circumstances of the case, has allowed the application permitting respondents Nos.1 and 2 to be added as respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the claim petition, with a view to give fair opportunity to them being the legal heirs of the claimant and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, prayed to allow the revision by setting aside the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1 st respondent submits that the petitioner was working as V.R.A. at the time of the accident, and due to the accident, he became unsound mind. Taking advantage of the same, father of the petitioner has not included respondent Nos.1 and 2 as parties in the claim petition. Being class-I legal heirs, they should be impleaded as immediate family members of the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that she never left the petitioner under the custody of her father-in- law, and further adds that they are depending on the income of the petitioner which is their only source to eke out their livelihood. That apart, the 1 st respondent has to take care of her minor son, the 2 nd respondent, who is the most affected person. That apart, the 1 st respondent has to take care of her minor son, the 2 nd respondent, who is the most affected person. If they are not included as respondents in the claim petition, they will be deprived of their right of claiming compensation. The trial Court has discussed the matter in proper perspective and rightly allowed the implead petition. Therefore, the order impugned in the revision needs no interference. 5. As of the date of the accident, the petitioner was working as V.R.A. in Thangedupalli Village. On 06.03.2019, he was riding a motorcycle bearing No. AP 04 BY 7664. At around 5:30 p.m., when the petitioner reached Vempalli Cheruvu, a lorry bearing No. AP 29U 9114 came in the opposite direction and dashed into the motorcycle, causing multiple injuries to the petitioner. The petitioner was admitted to the hospital and discharged on 12.07.2019. Due to the nature of the accident, doctors issued a certificate stating that the petitioner is unfit for any job, and he has suffered 100% disability and became unsound person. 6. The case of the revision petitioner is that after the accident, the 1 st respondent, who is the wife of the claim petitioner, has avoided looking after him and she left for her parents' place along with her child, the 2 nd respondent, and the claim petitioner has incurred debts for treatment and the borrowers are insisting his father to clear off the debts. 7. It is apt to refer to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is as under: “ 166 . 7. It is apt to refer to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is 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 from the accident, by all 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 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.” 8. A conjoint reading of Clauses (a) and (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 166 of the M.V. Act along with the provision, makes it manifest that in case where an application is not filed by the injured person personally, it may be filed by an authorized agent. 9. Likewise, in the event of death, while the application is preferred by one or more of the legal representatives, it must be instituted for the benefit of all the legal heirs. The legal representative, who has not joined as claimant, must be arrayed as respondent. The legislative intent underlying the proviso is to ensure that the claim is adjudicated comprehensively with due representation of all the persons entitled for compensation. It is thus a condition precedent for maintainability of such application till the legal representatives of the deceased are made parties either as applicants or as respondents. 10. The wife of an unsound person may potentially become a legal representative of her husband, especially if she depended on his income or suffered a loss due to his injuries. The term “legal representative” under the M.V. Act is interpreted broadly to include individuals who suffer a loss because of the accident, even if they are not direct dependents such as spouses, parents, or children. The term “legal representative” under the M.V. Act is interpreted broadly to include individuals who suffer a loss because of the accident, even if they are not direct dependents such as spouses, parents, or children. Furthermore, the wife can be considered a legal representative if she can prove a loss caused by her husband’s injuries or disabilities, particularly if she was financially reliant on his income. 11. In the present case, the wife of the injured filed the application seeking her impleadment which was allowed by the trial Court. The said order was assailed in the present revision. It is to be noted that the wife of the injured is Class-I legal heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and as such, she squarely falls within the category of legal representatives contemplated under Section 166 (1) (c) of the M.V. Act and the proviso thereto. Her presence on record is necessary not only to safeguard her statutory entitlement for compensation but also to ensure a complete and effective adjudication of the claim. 12. In view of the above legal position and having regard to the fact that the wife is Class-I legal heir of the injured, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in consonance with the object of the M.V. Act in allowed the implead application and the order of the trial Court warrants no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the revision is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.