The court confirmed that the absence of siblings of the deceased parents did not invalidate the claim petition filed by surviving lineal descendants under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.

1. The claimants 1 to 4 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal) in O.P.(M.V) No.462 of 2012, are the appellants herein.

2. One Valsalam met with an accident on 16.01.2012, while he was riding a bike, when a KSRTC bus hit the bike. Valsalam was taken to the hospital and admitted in the ICU, and he later succumbed to the injuries. The deceased is stated to be 58 years of age and a businessman at the time of the accident. The claim petition was, therefore, instituted by the wife and three children of the deceased (claimants 1 to 4). Apart from the wife and children, one Muthunayakam and Chellamma – parents of the deceased – also joined the claim petition as claimants 5 and 6. The parents of the deceased, impleaded as above, died during the pendency of the claim petition before the Tribunal. The appellants herein filed I.A. No.3522 of 2018 to record them as the legal representatives of claimants 5 and 6. By an order dated 05.10.2020, the Tribunal, taking note of the contention raised by the insurance company that claimants 5 and 6 were having nine children, including deceased Valsalam, and therefore, insofar as the other children, being the siblings of deceased Valsalam-were not impleaded in the I.A., the same is not maintainable, dismissed the application. The Tribunal further held that the applicants ought to have produced the legal heirship certificate as regards the legal representatives of the deceased parents of Valsalam to convince the Tribunal that they alone are the legal representatives. In the light of the dismissal of the I.A. as above, by the impugned award dated 16.02.2021, the Tribunal found that the claim petition is not maintainable and dismissed the same. The Tribunal also took note of the contention raised on behalf of the appellants herein with specific reference to the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and even thereafter found that insofar as the parents were impleaded originally, upon their death, their right would devolve on their children, and hence the legal representatives of the deceased parents are also to be impleaded. In other words, the Tribunal found that in the absence of the siblings of the deceased as the legal representative of the deceased parents in the party array, the claim petition was not maintainable, leading to its dismissal.

3. It is the afore findings in the impugned award which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

4. On 26.09.2025, when this appeal was taken up for hearing, taking note of the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants with reference to the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent Insurance Company sought for further time.

5. Heard Sri.Sudheer, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri.Alex Antony Sebastian, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent, as well as Sri.Najeeb Khan, learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent Insurance Company.

6. The short issue arising for consideration in this appeal is as regards the sustainability or otherwise of the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that the claim petition is not maintainable in the absence of the other children of the deceased parents of Valsalam in the party array.

7. It is with reference to the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’), that an application seeking compensation is being lodged. Clause (c) to Section 166 (1) of the Act provides that – in the case of death resulting from the accident, the application can be lodged by all or any of the legal representatives of