* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
+ M.A.C.M.A No.3751 of 2009
%23.06.2014
Between:
The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd, Rep. by its Manager, Hyderabad. ... Appellant AND Gundela Damodar and others. …. Respondents ! Counsel for Appellant : Sri S. Raj Kumar ^ Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 : Sri T. Venkat Reddy < Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. 2007 (3) ALD 389 (AP)
2. (1987) 3 SCC 234 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No.3751 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
This MACMA is directed at the instance of Reliance General Insurance Company Limited against the Award dated 09.06.2009 in M.V.O.P.No.582 of 2007 passed by the Chairman, MACT-cum-Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal).
2) The facts in brief are thus:
a) The two sons of Gundela Narasamma having been aggrieved by the death caused to their mother by the lorry bearing No.AP 29U 4479 filed MVOP No.582 of 2007 against owner and insurer of the offending lorry who are respondents 1 and 2 before the Tribunal and claimed Rs.3 lakhs as compensation. The first respondent remained ex- parte. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company contested the matter. On appreciation of evidence on record the lower Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,81,000/- as compensation under differing heads against the respondents as follows:
Loss of dependency Rs. 2,64,000-00 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000-00 Funeral and other expenses Rs. 2,000-00 Total Rs. 2,81,000-00 Hence the appeal by the Insurance Company.
3 ) Heard arguments of Sri S.Raj Kumar, learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company and Sri T.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2/ claimants. None appeared for R3— owner of the vehicle.
4) The only point urged by the learned counsel for appellant is that the claimants are admittedly majors earning their own income and not depending on the deceased and as such, the Tribunal ought not to have granted compensation under the head loss of dependency. The Tribunal thus committed a grave error and so the appeal may be allowed and award may be set aside.
5a) Per contra, the argument of learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2/claimants is dipronged. Firstly, he argued that the claimants being the sons of deceased are admittedly her legal heirs and legal representatives and hence they are entitled to lay claim for compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act (for short “MV Act”). He submitted that when the appellant raised similar question before the Tribunal, relying upon the decision reported in Narasimha
[1]
and another vs. Annapurna and another the Tribunal negatived the contention of the Insurance Company and awarded compensation. Therefore, it is futile for the appellant to raise again the same question in the appeal.
b) Secondly, he submitted, even if for argument sake it is conceded that compensation has to be awarded basing on the dependency factor alone, the Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence to show that the claimants are not the dependents on the income of their mother. It is true that the claimants are earning members. However, their evidence is that the deceased who was working as contract labourer in MCH was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and contributing the same for the maintenance of their family. As such, the claimants were depending on her income. Since no contra evidence was adduced by the Insurance Company, it cannot question the entitlement of the claimants. He thus prayed to dismiss the appeal.
6) In the light of above rival arguments, the point for determination in this appeal is:
“Whether the claimants being major sons of the deceased are entitled to compensation?”
7 POINT: The accident, involvement of lorry bearing No.AP 227 4479 and death of the deceased are not in dispute.
a) Admittedly, the two claimants are major sons of the deceased— Gundela Narasamma. In the claim petition itself the claimants 1 and 2 described themselves as private service holder and auto driver respectively and they are earning income independently. Probably basing on this fact the Insurance Company might contended before the Tribunal that the claimants are not entitled to compensation. In para- 8(b) and (c) of its judgment the Tribunal has dealt with this aspect. It observed that though petitioners are major sons, they being the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to compensation under Section 166 of MV Act. In this regard, it relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in Narasimha’s case (1 supra) wherein it was held thus:
“The compensation payable in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act is to a legal representative but not to the dependents. The fact that the appellants are the son and daughter of the deceased is not denied or disputed, so, they would be the legal heirs to the estate of the deceased, and therefore, entitled to get compensation to be awarded due to the death of their father.”
The Tribunal accordingly negatived the contention of the Insurance Company. Having perused the above decision, I fully endorse the view expressed by the Tribunal. Under Section 166 (c) of MV Act an application for compensation can be filed by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. The term used in Section 166 (c) is ‘legal representatives’ but not ‘dependents’. Admittedly, the two claimants are the own sons of the deceased and hence they are her legal heirs and legal representatives. It may be noted that the term ‘legal representative’ is not defined in MV Act. However, the same has been explained by the Honourable Apex Court in its decision reported i n Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad vs.
[2]
Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai . In this case, Honourable Apex Court has not taken the dependency as a factor for awarding compensation. In that case a 14 year old boy who was not the bread winner of the family was run over by a bus and died. The brothers of the deceased claiming to be heirs and legal representatives of the deceased filed claim petition under MV Act. The respondent/Corporation questioned the entitlement of the claimants. In this context, while explaining the term ‘legal representative’ the Honourable Apex Court held thus:
“Para-11 xxxx xxxx 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. 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.
So, dependency cannot be taken as a sole factor for awarding compensation though in some cases a legal representative may also incidentally happens to be the dependent of the deceased.
The Supreme Court further observed thus:
“ Para-15 xxxx xxxx The fact that Parliament declined to take any action on the recommendation of the Law Commission of India suggests that Parliament intended that the expression “legal representative” in Section 110-A of the Act should be given a wider meaning and it should not be confined to the spouse, parent and children of the deceased.”
The Supreme Court ultimately held that brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to maintain the petition under Section 110A of MV Act, if he is a legal representative of the deceased.
b) Coming to the instant case, the claimants are admittedly the legal heirs and legal representatives of the deceased since they represent the estate of the deceased. In that capacity they are entitled to compensation. Even the dependency factor is examined, their evidence is that their mother who was working as Sweeper in MCH on daily wage basis used to contribute her earnings for the maintenance of the family. It shows that in addition to their earnings, the income of the deceased was also used for the maintenance of the family and in that way they were depending on her earnings as such, they are entitled to compensation. Thus, in any view of the matter, the argument of the appellant that the claimants are not entitled to compensation being major sons of the deceased cannot be countenanced.
8) In the result, MACMA filed by Insurance Company is dismissed by confirming the judgment of the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.582 of 2007. No order as to costs in the appeal.
As a sequel miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J Date: 23.06.2014
Note: L.R Copy to be marked: YES / NO
Murthy
[1] 2007 (3) ALD 389 (AP)
[2] (1987) 3 SCC 234