Legal representatives can claim compensation amount without a succession certificate, as clarified in Rukhsana (Smt.) & Ors. v. Nazrunnisa (Smt.) & Anr. : (2000) 9 SCC 240

1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties on application filed by the appellant for treating the present civil misc. appeal as against the order dated 8.4.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sojat ('the Tribunal') along with an application seeking condonation of delay.

2. The facts in brief are that the claimants filed application under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act'), the same was opposed by the Insurance Company, inter alia, on the ground of absence of succession certificate, which plea was accepted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and their application under Section 174 of the Act was rejected with liberty to obtain succession certificate and file application thereafter.

3. In pursuance of the order passed by the Tribunal, the legal representatives approached the District Court, Jodhpur for grant of succession certificate, which application was also rejected in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rukhsana (Smt.) & Ors. v. Nazrunnisa (Smt.) & Anr. : (2000) 9 SCC 240 while observing that succession certificate could only be issued for debts and securities and the amount of award cannot be treated as debt and/or security.

4. The present appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 has been filed seeking to question the order passed by the trial court refusing the grant of succession certificate.

5. By order dated 11.7.2013 the facts as indicated here-in-before were noticed and the appellants were granted time to do the needful.

6. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the present appeal is treated as appeal under Section 173 of the Act against the order dated 8.4.2008 passed by the Tribunal. The application for condonation of delay in filing appeal is allowed and delay in filing appeal is condoned.

7. With the consent of parties, heard on appeal.

8. The present appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 8.4.2008 passed by the Tribunal, whereby the application filed by the claimant for recovery of the amount of compensation awarded to the deceased Mohd. Nasir in Motor Accident Claim Case No.86/2004, as legal representatives of the said claimant Mohd. Nasir was rejected for lack of succession certificate from the competent civil court.

9. The facts in brief may be noticed thus that the appellants claiming themselves to be legal representatives of one Mohd. Nasir being mother, wife and children approached the Tribunal under Section 174 of the Act seeking execution of the award dated 20.2.2006, which was passed in favour of said Mohd. Nasir on account of injuries suffered by him and whereby he was awarded a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6 pre cent.

10. The Insurance Company filed its reply and raised preliminary objection about absence of succession certificate in favour of the legal representatives. As noticed above, the said objection was upheld and the application was rejected.

11. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the said view is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rukhsana(Smt.) & Ors. v. Nazrunnisa(Smt.) & Anr. : (2000) 9 SCC 240 .

12. Learned counsel for the respondent though supported the view taken by the Tribunal submitted that in any case the matter has to be remanded back to the Claims Tribunal to decide the application filed by the appellants.

13. I have considered the rival submissions.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rukhsana (supra) has held thus:-

"Now, the High Court has directed them to produce a Succession Certificate and observed that on production of such Certificate, the court before which the claims were, will determine the shares payable to each of the claimants.

3. We cannot approve the said view of the High Court, for, Succession Certificate as envisaged in the Indian Succession Act can be granted only in respect of "debts" or "securities" to which a deceased was entitled. The amount involved in this case was not a debt or security to which the