Back
2007 Supreme(SC) 991
2007(5) Supreme 498
Supreme Court of India
(From Gauhati High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & D.K. Jain, JJ.
Mrs. Hafizun Begum — Petitioner
versus
Md. Ikram Heque and Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 3216 of 2007
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 15012 of 2005)
Decided on : 24-07-2007
Important Point
The liability in terms of Section 140 of the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency.
Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 2(11) – “Legal representative” means 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 – A legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child. (Para 12)
AIR 1989 SC 1589; AIR 1987 SC 1690 – Relied upon.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 140 – The liability in terms of Section 140 of the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency – The right to file a claim application has to be considered in the background of right to entitlement said basic issues having not been elaborately dealt with, matter remitted back to the High Court. (Paras 14 and 16)
JT 2007 (5) SC 78 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case :
An interesting question has been raised in this appeal about the acceptability of claim for grant of compensation when the relatives are legal heirs but are not dependants of the deceased.
Findings of the Court :
Basic issues necessary to be considered for adjudication of the case having not been considered matter remitted back to High Court.
Result : Matter remitted back.
JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.—
1.Leave granted.
2.An interesting question has been raised in this appeal about the acceptability of claim for grant of compensation when the relatives are legal heirs but are not dependants of the deceased, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darrang, Mangaldoi (in short “Tribunal”).
3.Appellant claimed to be the wife of one Md. Nurul Hoque. She assailed the validity of the order dated 30.5.2005 in Petition No.382/2005 filed by the brothers of aforesaid Md. Nurul Hoque (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) in MAC Case No.139/2001 filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the ‘Act’).
4.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the brothers of the deceased did not depend on him and they had no right to file a petition which was allowed. The High Court found that the widow of a Muslim who has no issue will get one fourth share in the property of the deceased-husband and remaining part will go to the brothers. Question was about the right of the brothers who were not dependants on the deceased to get their share in the compensation awarded. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
5.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court was not justified in rejecting the stand of the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, supported the order.
6.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.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
(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.
(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 particulars as may be prescribed:
Provided that where no claim for compensation under Section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant.
xxx xxx xxx
(4)The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of Section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act.”
8.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.
9.Section 168 of the Act reads as follows :
“Award of the Claims Tribunal:- On receipt of
