The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal, the definition of 'legal representatives' under S.166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the applicability of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 are crucial in determining the apportionment of compensation in motor accident cases.

Thomas, J. Appellants are the brother and two sisters of one Khadeesa Umma who died in a motor accident on 5-6-1984. She was married but had no children. Her husband made a claim for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short'Claims Tribunal') While the claim was pending adjudication appellants got themselves impleaded in the claim proceedings as respondents. Claims Tribunal passed an award in the said proceedings against the driver and owner of the motor vehicle which was involved in the accident and mulcted the insurance company with liability under the award. Claims Tribunal, however, apportioned the awarded sum (Rs. 86,000/-) in the ratio of 2:1 and allotted the larger portion to the husband and the smaller portion to the siblings of the deceased (appellants). This appeal is in challenge of the ratio adopted for such apportionment.

2. Appellants contend now that under Mohammedan Law the husband of a Muslim lady (who died childless) would be entitled only to one half share of the estate of the deceased and the other half would go to her siblings and hence the Claims Tribunal should have allotted one half of the awarded amount, to the appellants.

3. The above contention is advanced on the strength of S.166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') which enables the legal representatives of the deceased to apply for compensation. Though the Act does not contain any definition for the words "legal representatives of the deceased", R.2(k) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 contains a definition for that expression as persons "who in law are entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased if he had left any estate at the time of his death and includes any legal heir of the deceased and the executor or administrator of the estate of the deceased."

4. In order to determine the said question we should first guage the amplitude of the jurisdiction of Claims Tribunal in awarding compensation to the legal representatives of deceased victims in motor accidents. Before the establishment of Claims Tribunals under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, civil courts were exercising jurisdiction to dispose of all claims for compensation arising from motor accidents. With the establishment of Claims Tribunal, civil court's jurisdiction in respect of such claims in that area stood transposed to the Claims Tribunal. S.165 of the Act (which corresponds to S. I10 of the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939) concerns the establishment of Claims Tribunals and a reading of that provision would make the position clear that Claims Tribunal is vested with plenary jurisdiction to deal with all such claims. S.165(1) empowers the State Government to constitute Claims Tribunals for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents arising out of the use of motor vehicles. Practically all claims for compensation arising out of motor accidents are covered by the jurisdiction now vested with the Claims Tribunal. This can further be seen from the fact that once a Claims Tribunal is established jurisdiction of the civil court would stand completely evacuated in respect of claims for compensation arising from motor accidents (vide S.175). In other words, a Claims Tribunal is made the substitute for civil court for such claims.

5. Even so the substitute law governing such claims continue to be the law of torts. It is in common law that claims were entertained by courts of equity in England based on civil wrongs. The principles followed by such equity courts were followed almost fully by the civil courts in India. So a claim for compensation Can be made by a person entitled to such compensation because he has the right to do so in common law. Right to claim compensation based on fault is not the creation of any statute and the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act have only provided procedural rights in respect of such claims. This view has been adopted by the Orissa High Court in Oriss