IMPORTANT POINT
Illegitimate children have rights to their parents' property but cannot claim compensation if they are not legal heirs of the victim.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:

1. The present Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and/or order dated 05.05.2016 passed by the Judge, M.A.C. Tribunal, 4th Court, Additional District and Session Judge, Suri, Birbhum in MAC Case No. 29 of 2012 under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act.

2. The facts of the case is as follows:-

That on 06.01.2012 about 10.45 hrs, the victim was traveling by the Bus being no. WB-53-0939 from Itagoria to Suri Bus Stand and suddenly the driver applied brake near Suri Bus Stand and the victim fell down from the Bus and sustained grievous injury. She was forwarded to Suri Sadar Hospital and succumbed to her injuries on that date. It was caused due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the vehicle being no. WB-53-0939. She was aged about 50 years and being a day labour earned Rs. 3,000/- per month. The sole claimant of the deceased being her husband came before the Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- against Jayanta Banerjee and Ritwick Banerjee, the owners of the said Bus and the National Insurance Company Ltd. the insurer of the Bus.

The owner of the Bus did not participate in the hearing of the case. The O.P., National Insurance Company Ltd., the insurer of the offending vehicle has opposed the prayer by a written statement denying the claim and allegation of the petitioner as well as authenticity of the driver has been denied. It is also stated that the deceased Rati Bagdi was not the legally married wife of the original claimant Ajit Bagdi and therefore the heirs of Ajit Bagdi are not entitled to get any compensation, as the case originally had been instituted by Ajit Bagdi and after his death, his children by another person have been substituted.

3. The original claimant, Ajit Bagdi was examined as P.W.1 and he deposed that he was the sole legal heir of the victim, being her husband, there being no issue out of the said wedlock. Relevant documents were exhibited. Charge Sheet has been marked exhibit 2. Exhibit 4 is the Post Mortem Report. It shows that the victim died in a road traffic accident.

4. The offending vehicle is WB-53-0939 and had a valid insurance.

5. The present claimants are the legal heirs of the original claimant but not of the victim and on such finding the Learned Tribunal dismissed the claim.

6. Hence the appeal on the following ground:-

That the legal heirs of the original claimant being his son and daughter from his second wife are entitled to the compensation to which the original claimant was entitled under the law as the victim had no other legal heirs and the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial legislation.

7. The Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants has argued as follows:-

That Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, governs the inheritance rights of illegitimate children. As per Section 16(3), illegitimate children are only entitled to the property of their parents and not of any other relation. Apart from Hindus, the law is also applicable to Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists. This was interpreted as illegitimate children having the right in their parents self-acquired property and not in ancestral property.

It is further submitted that in the case of Bharatha Matha & Another Versus R Vijaya Renganathan & Others (2010) and the case in Jinia Keotin Vs Kumar Sitaram (2003), the apex court had also taken the stand that children born out of void marriages were not entitled to claim ancestral property of their father and could only stake a claim in his self-acquired property.

But the Supreme Court, however, held that illegitimate children have the right in their parent?s self-acquired as well as ancestral properties under the Hindu Marriage Act while giving its verdict in Revansiddappa & Other Versus Mallikarjuna & Others in 2011.

It is further stated that the relationship between the parents may not be sanctioned by law, but the birth of a child in such a relationship has to be viewed independently of the relationship of parents. A