Legal representatives can file for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, irrespective of being legal heirs, but must prove their relationship with the deceased.

ORDER :

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 23.08.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Jodhpur in Claim Case No. 573/2017 (N.C.V. No. 573/2017) whereby the claim petition as preferred by the claimants has been rejected.

While deciding Issue No. 2, learned Tribunal observed that the claimants failed to prove that they were the legal heirs of deceased Karni Dan and hence, they were not entitled to any compensation.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as per section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an application for compensation can be filed by any of the legal representatives of the deceased. The said provision does not prescribe for “legal heirs” but talks of “legal representatives.” Further, the proviso to the said section provides that the application for compensation can be made by any of the legal representatives for and on behalf of other legal representatives too. Therefore, rejection of the claim petition by the learned Tribunal on count of the claimants being not the legal heirs of the deceased is totally erroneous.

3. Learned counsel further submitted that it was proved on record that the deceased was an unmarried person and the claimants were related to him being his grandsons. The deceased was residing with the claimants only and even if the claimants are not proved to be dependants of the deceased, they would be entitled to compensation as law governing the motor accident cases nowhere prescribe that only the dependants of the deceased would be entitled to compensation.

In support of his submissions, counsel relied upon the following judgments:

i. Dr. Gangaraju Sowmini v. Alavala Sudhakar Reddy and Ors. 2016 ACJ 1416 (decided on 01.02.2016-APHC).

ii. Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel & Ors. v. United India Insurance and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 394.

iii. National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender and Ors. (2020) 11 SCC 356.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment as well as the judgments as relied upon by the counsel.

5. To adjudicate the fact whether the present claimants are entitled to compensation, their relation with the deceased is essential to be taken into consideration so as to determine whether they fall in the category of “legal heir” or “legal representative.” As per the claim petition, the claimants averred themselves to be grandsons of the deceased.

6. AW1 Bhanwar Dan (one of the claimants), in his cross-examination, deposed as under:

^^e'rd dj.khnku th ds dksbZ iq= o iq=h;k ugh FkhA dj.khnku th vfookfgr FksA oDr nq?kZVuk dj.khnku th ds ekrk firk thfor ugha FksA dj.khnku th esjs nknkth ds HkkbZ FksA esjs nknkth dk uke Hkh[knku th gSA dj.khnku th ds lxs HkkbZ ugh FksA esjs firkth nks HkkbZ FksA esjs pkpk ds Hkh rhu csVs gS ftuds uke vtqZujke] xksfoan o fxj/kkjh gSA vtqZujke ljdkjh v/;kid gS vkSj os nksuks ikbZ djrs gSA eS [ksrh dk dk;Z djrk gwWA e'rd dj.khnku esjs lxs nknk ugha FksA eS lky ds 5&7 yk[k :i;s dek ysrk gWwA esjs ,d iq= o ,d iq=h gSA dj.khnku th oa'kkoyh ds vk/kkj ij nknkth FksA**

7. AW2 Madan Singh, when cross-examined on the aspect, admitted as under:

^^esjs lxs nknkth dk uke Hkh[knku Fkk ftudk lxk dksbZ HkkbZ ugha FkkA dj.khnku esjs nknk th ds pkpk ds iq= FksA esjs nknk ds nks iq= Fks ftuesa ,d esjs firk nqxkZnku o ,d mejnku esjs pkpk gSA esjs firk ds ge rhu iq= gSA mejnku ds rhu larkus gsA mejnku th ds ,d iq= ds nks cPps gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd mejnku th dk ,d iq= v/;kid gS vkSj nks vHkh ikbZ dj jgk gSA eS okgu pkyd dk dk;Z djrk gw vkSj [ksrhckMh Hkh djrk gWwA eS izfrekg 10&12 gtkj :i;s dek ysrk gWwA ge izkFkhZx.k dj.khnku th ds fof/kd mrjkf/kdkjh gks bl ckcr- gekjs ikl dksbZ nLrkost ugh gS vkSj uk gh dksbZ fy[kk ih gSA**

He further admitted as under:

^^;g dguk lgh gS dh dj.khnku th esjs nknk ds pkpk ds yMds gks bl ckcr- eSus fj'rsnkj dk dksbZ nLrkost is'k ugh fd;k gSA**

8. AW3 Ram Dayal, the alleged eye witness, when cross-examined on this aspect, admitted as under:

^^eS Hkaojnku] enuflag o