JUDGMENT R.K. Mahajan, J.
1. This order will dispose of the above two appeals arising out of order dated 18.2.1983 passed by Mr. Sangam Lal Tripathi, District Judge, Jaunpur acting as Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition Nos. 32 and 39 of 1979. The learned Tribunal rejected the claim petitions. In M.A.C.T. Case No. 32 of 1979, the deceased was Gayatri Devi. She was widow and issueless. She was the aunt of the claimants. In M.A.C.T. Case No. 39 of 1979, the deceased was Sankatha Prasad, and Amardevi claimant-appellant is sister of deceased's maternal uncle. As mentioned in the grounds of appeal, they have alleged that they are themselves to be the dependants of the deceased. Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal invoked the provisions of Fatal Accidents Act (13 of 1855) under which only the legal heirs of the deceased- parents, wife and son, can claim the compensation.
2. The unfortunate accident took place on 8.2.1978 in which so many persons had died and 30 were injured.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire record. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and perusing the impugned orders, I am of the view that the learned Tribunal has not rightly construed the provisions of Section 110-A read with Section 110-B of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and 1-A of Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. The emphasis of the Motor Vehicles Act is on dependency and in our Indian society, the near and dear, including the brother's children can be dependants, depending on circumstances. The Tribunal has also not given the finding of negligence. Piecemeal trial is not desirable as it leads to delay and injustice.
4. Mr. A.L. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the appellants in both the appeals aforesaid, has relied upon Gujarat State Road Trans. Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai AIR 1987 SC 1690: 1987 ACJ 561 (SC), in which it was held as under:
(B) Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939), Section 110-A Proviso-Motor Accident-Death-Legal representative applying for compensation-Need not necessarily be one of the persons contemplated by Section 1A of Fatal Accidents Act. [Fatal Accidents Act (13 of 1855), Section 1A].
The expression 'legal representative' has not been defined in the Act. However, 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. The proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles 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) 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 an application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives. Both the person or persons 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. 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 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 Motor Vehicles 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. It is further seen from Section 110-B 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 of Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act 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 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 and to that extent the provisions of the Act do supersede the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act 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 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 Motor Vehicles Act to file claim 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. New situations and new dangers require new strategies and new remedies.
(C) Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939) Section 110-A-Motor Accident- Death-Claim application-Brother of deceased can maintain it if he is a legal representative of deceased.
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 Section 110-A to 110-F. 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 appeals to it to be just as provided in Section 110-B and to specify the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid. The determination of the compensation payable and its apportionment as required by Section 110-B amongst the legal representatives for whose benefit an application may be filed under Section 110-A have to be done in accordance with well-known principles of law. It is to be remembered that brothers' children and sometimes foster children live together and they are dependent upon the breadwinner of the family and if the breadwinner 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 has been substantially modified by the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act in relation to cases arising out of motor vehicles accidents.
5. Mr. A.L. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the claimants-appellants has also relied upon the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Tulsabai Tukaram Kadave 1990 ACJ 523 (Bombay). In this case it was also laid down as under:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 110-A-Legal representative-Whether brothers/sisters of the deceased along with widow, children and mother could claim compensation-Held: yes. [1987 ACJ 561 (SC) followed].
6. For the reasons aforesaid, I allow the appeals after setting aside the impugned orders and remand the case to the trial court/Tribunal with a direction to decide the case in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court, as mentioned above, within two months of the receipt of the record as the accident is of 1978 by affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence.
7. Both the above appeals are disposed of finally accordingly.
Let the record of the court below be sent immediately.