Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in these five appeals and the learned counsel appearing for the insurer.
2. The claim petitions, five in number, filed by the appellants stand dismissed as per a common award.
3. Joice is the wife of P.C.Mani. They had three children. Wesly Mani, Sheri Ann Mani and Lois Mary Mani. In a road traffic accident, the Sumo car, in which the family was travelling hit against a parked vehicle. The driver of the car was treated as negligent. In the incident, the driver died. Another person by name Sindhu Pillai, who was in the car, P.C.Mani, his wife Joice and their daughter Lois Mary Mani were also died. The claim petitions were filed by Wesly Mani and Sheri Ann Mani. In one petition, Wesly Mani claimed compensation for personal injuries that he suffered. Sheri Ann Mani filed another claim petition, claiming compensation for the personal injuries that she suffered. Wesly and Sheri jointly filed three other claim petitions, each claiming compensation on account of the death of Mani, Joice and Lois. The insurer produced Exhibit B1 policy. The Tribunal held that on the death of the insured, namely, P.C.Mani, to whom the vehicle belong, the applicants became his legal representatives and having stepped into the shoes of Mani are not entitled to claim any compensation, because they cannot claim even against the insurer.
4. When Mani, his wife and one daughter died in the accident and when the two appellants namely, Wesly Mani and Sheri Ann Mani, were injured in that accident, the aforesaid claims are founded on two sets of legal rights. Wesly Mani and Sheri Ann Mani, as passengers and occupants of the vehicle, are entitled to claim as against the owner and the insurer. The owner having died in the same accident, the insurance cover will enure to the estate of the owner to the extend of any liability that may accrue as against that estate, as a result of the accident. Therefore, the claim partitions of Wesly Mani and Sheri Ann Mani were eligible to be considered for payment of compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the insurer is liable to satisfy those claims as to compensation for personal injuries.
5. Wesly Mani and Sheri Ann Mani are the surviving legal representatives of Joice and Lois Mary Mani. Therefore, treating Joice and Lois also as occupants and passengers of the vehicle, Wesly Mani and Sheri Ann Mani were entitled to sustain their claim petitions for compensation on account of the death of their mother Joice and sister Lois. In so far as P.C.Mani, the insured/owner, is concerned, the contention of the insurer before the Tribunal was only to the effect that the claimants were the legal representatives of the insured and, therefore, they could not make the claim. Though we do not see any specific plea in the written statement of the insurer before the Tribunal that there was no personal accident cover as regards the owner of the vehicle covered by Exhibit B1 policy, we think that the scope of the comprehensive insurance granted by Exhibit B1 policy needs to be examined further on the basis of the evidence that may be adduced by the parties including the insurer before the Tribunal. But, one thing is certain. If there is insurance cover, sufficient enough to provide a personal accident cover as regards P.C.Mani is concerned, it goes without saying that the application for compensation by Wesly Mani and Sheri Ann Mani as the legal representatives of P.C.Mani cannot but be allowed. We may also indicate that whether P.C.Mani's estate has an independent right to compensation on the reason that P.C.Mani was also a passenger and occupant in the vehicle at the time of the accident may also be an issue for consideration, if such legal issue arises during the adjudication, following the order of remit which we make hereby.
6. Thus, we hold that the claim for compensation is maintainable in so far as the O.Ps.(M.V.) which gave rise to M.A.C.A.Nos.474 of 2011, 475 of 2011, 476 of 2011 and 477 of 2011 are concerned. We leave open the claim for compensation in the O.P.(M.V), that has given rise to M.A.C.A.No. 473 of 2011, because in that case the legal right to sue for compensation and the eligibility to claim compensation as against the insurer will have to be decided. In the other cases, eligibility is hereby declared and insurance cover is also hereby upheld. The quantum of compensation due in each of the cases will have to be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal. In the result, these appeals are allowed, setting aside the impugned common award and remitting the O.P.(M.V.)Nos.1970/2002, 1743/2002, 1571/2002, 1971/2002 and 1742/2002 to the Tribunal for further consideration, in the light of what is stated above.
Parties are directed to mark appearance before the Tribunal on 5.12.2014.
Sd/-
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) Sd/-
(BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE DG