IMPORTANT POINT
Married daughter is entitled to maintain claim petition u/s 166 MV Act but where she was not dependent on deceased, quantum of compensation could be the liability referable to Section 140 of M.V. Act.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166 & 140 — Entitlement of married daughter to maintain motor accident claim petition — Tribunal dismissed petition holding that claimant being not dependent on deceased was not entitled to any compensation — High Court dismissed appeal holding that though a married daughter could be covered by expression “legal representative”, she was not entitled to any compensation unless she was dependent on deceased — Appeal — Contention that there was loss to estate and person who was legal representative but not dependent could yet be beneficiary of estate — Liability u/s 140 of the Act did not cease because there was absence of dependency — Right to file claim application was to be considered in background of right to entitlement — Where a legal representative who was not dependent filed claim petition, quantum could not be less than the liability referable to Section 140 of the Act.
       Held : In terms of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 166 of the Act in case of death, all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased become entitled to compensation and any such legal representative can file a claim petition. The proviso to said sub-section makes the position clear that where all the legal representatives had not joined, then application can be made on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased by impleading those legal representatives as respondents. Therefore, the High Court was justified in its view that the appellant could maintain a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Act. (Para 9)
       There are several factors which have to be noted. The liability under Section 140 of the Act does not cease because there is absence of dependency. The right to file a claim application has to be considered in the background of right to entitlement. While assessing the quantum, the multiplier system is applied because of deprivation of dependency. In other words, multiplier is a measure. There are three stages while assessing the question of entitlement. Firstly, the liability of the person who is liable and the person who is to indemnify the liability, if any. Next is the quantification and Section 166 is primarily in the nature of recovery proceedings. As noted above, liability in terms of Section 140 of the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency. (Para 14)
       Section 165 of the Act also throws some light on the controversy. The explanation includes the liability under Sections 140 and 163-A. (Para 15)
       Judged in that background where a legal representative who is not dependant files an application for compensation, the quantum cannot be less than the liability referable to Section 140 of the Act. Therefore, even if there is no loss of dependency the claimant if he or she is a legal representative will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall be not less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. (Para 16)
       In the impugned judgment the High Court has correctly drawn a distinction between "right to apply for compensation" and "entitlement to compensation. The High Court has rightly held that even a married daughter is a legal representative and she is certainly entitled to claim compensation. It has further held, on the facts of the present case, that the married daughter was not dependent on her father. She was living with her husband in her husbands house. Therefore, she was not entitled to claim statutory compensation. According to the High Court, the claimant was not dependent on her fathers income. Hence, she was not entitled to claim compensation based on "No Fault Liability". (Para 20)
       In my opinion, "No Fault Liability", envisaged in Section 140 of the said Act, is distinguishable from the rule of Strict Liability". In the former, the compensation amount is fixed. It is Rs. 50,000/- in cases of death [Section 140(2)]. It is a statutory liability. It is an amount which can be deducted from the final amount awarded by the Tribunal. Since, the amount is a fixed amount/crystalized amount, the same has to be considered as part of the estate of the deceased. In the present case, the deceased was an earning member. The statutory compensation could constitute part of his estate. His legal representative, namely, his daughter has inherited his estate. She was entitled to inherit his estate. In the circumstances, she was entitled to receive compensation under "No Fault Liability" in terms of Section 140 of the said Act. My opinion is confined only to the "No Fault Liability" under Section 140 of the said Act. That section is a Code by itself within the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (Para 21)

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. — Leave granted.

2. An interesting question is involved in this appeal. By the impugned judgment the Calcutta High Court held that though the appellant, a married daughter of Bata Krishna Mondal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) could maintain a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the ‘Act’) she was not entitled to any compensation as she was not dependant upon the deceased.

3. Factual position is undisputed and needs a brief reference.

4. On 11.5.1998 deceased lost his life in a vehicular accident and the offending vehicle, a Mini Truck registration No.WB-29/0185 belonged to respondent No.2. As the deceased had no other legal heir, a claim petition was lodged claiming compensation. Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘insurer’) with whom the offending vehicle was the subject-matter of insurance filed a written statement taking the stand that since the claimant was not dependant upon the deceased, there was no question of any compensation being paid. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Midnapore at Tamluk, District Midnapore (in short the ‘Tribunal’) dismissed the claim petition accepting the stand of the insurer.

5. An appeal was filed before the Calcutta High Court questioning the correctness of the Tribunal’s view. The High Court by the impugned judgment held that the appeal was without merit and dismissed the same. It was held that though a married daughter can be covered by the expression “legal representative” appearing in Section 166 of the Act, she was not entitled to any compensation unless he or she was dependant on the deceased. The expression ‘“legal representative” has not been defined either in the Act or the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (in short the ‘Rules’). The widest meaning, therefore, can be ascribed to it in terms of Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’).

6. When the matter came up for hearing considering the importance of the question, Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel was requested to act as Amicus Curiae. He has with reference to various provisions submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal and the High Court is super technical. Even if there was no dependence, there is a loss to the estate and a person who is a legal representative but not dependant can yet be a beneficiary of the estate. It was, therefore, submitted that a realistic and pragmatic view should be taken.

7. Learned counsel for the insurer supported the judgment of the Tribunal and the High Court.

8. Section 166 of the Act corresponds to Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Old Act’) and the same reads as follows:

“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

(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.

(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particula

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 434

IMPORTANT POINTMarried daughter is entitled to maintain claim petition u/s 166 MV Act but where she was not dependent on deceased, quantum of compensation could be the liability referable to Section 140 of M.V. Act.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Married daughter is entitled to maintain claim petition u/s 166 MV Act but where she was not dependent on deceased, quantum of compensation could be the liability referable to Section 140 of M.V. Act.