CHANDRASHEKHAR, J.

( 1 ) CAN a father maintain a petition for compensation under S. 110a of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of the death of his son in an automobile accident, when the mother is alive? That is the question that arises for determination in this appeal. One Basavarajaiah died as a result of an automobile accident in Davanagere city on 16-12-1965. He was survived by his mother and his father.

( 2 ) ON 10-2-1966 the father (appellant 1) made a petition under S. 110a of the Act before the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) claiming compensation. More than a year later i. e. , in February 1967, he made an application, ia. IV, to implead the mother of the deceased as the second petitioner. Respondents 1 to 3 herein, namely, the owner of the motor vehicle involved in that accident, the Insurance Co. (wherein that vehicle was insured) and the driver of that vehicle who were also respondents 1 to 3 before the Tribunal), did not file any objections to IA. IV. The Tribunal allowed that application on 3-3-1967 and the mother was added as petitioner 2 in the petition.

( 3 ) ON 20-12-1967, petitioner 2, namely, the mother, made an application praying for condoning the delay in making her claim. That application was opposed by the respondents. The Tribunal dealt with that application along with the main petition.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal framed six issues. The third issue is whether the death of Basavarajaiah was on account of his own negligence; the first issue is regarding the right of the petitioners to claim compensation; the fifth issue is regarding the maintainability of the petition; and the second issue relates to the quantum of compensation.

( 5 ) ON the third issue, the Tribunal held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the motor vehicle. The Tribunal considered issues Nos. 1 and 5 together and held that when the mother is alive, she alone is entitled to claim compensation and that the father is not entitled to do so, that the mother must be regarded as having made the petition for compensation only on the day on which the application, IA. IV, was filed for being added as a petitioner, that at that time the period of limitation for making such petition had expired, and that the delay in making such petition could not be condoned as she had not shown that she was prevented by sufficient cause from making the petition in time. In that view, the Tribunal dismissed the petition and did not consider it necessary to give a finding on the second issue which relates to the quantum of compensation.

( 6 ) THE petitioners have presented this appeal. Mr. C. S. Shanthamallappa, learned Counsel for the appellants, contended that the view taken by the Tribunal that the father of the deceased could not maintain a petition for compensation under S. 110a of the Act, was clearly unsustainable.

( 7 ) IN order to appreciate the above contention, it is necessary to set out certain statutory provisions. Sub-sec. (1) of Section 110a of the Act reads:"110a (1 ). An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-sec. (1) of S. 110 may be made- (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) where death has resulted from the accident, by the legal representatives of the deceased; or (c) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. "

( 8 ) IN exercise of the powers conferred by S. 111a of the Act, the Government of Mysore made rules called 'the Mysore Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963'. The title of Chapter VII of these Rules is "motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules". Rule 342 of those Rules contains certain definitions. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 342 provides that the expression legal representative' shall have the meaning assigned to it under sub-section (11) of section 2 Civil Procedure Code.

( 9 ) THE

Click Here to Read the rest of this document