Legal representatives of a deceased can claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act regardless of their dependency status.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company and learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, who are the claimants.

2. Respondent No. 5 is the owner of the vehicle in question and notice upon him has been validly served, in spite of that he has chosen not to appear in the case.

3. The Trial Court Records has already been received in the matter.

4. This appeal is preferred against the judgment / award dated 19.09.2022, passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 77 of 2019, by the learned District-Judge-I-cum-P.O. Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Bokaro.

5. Mr. Amresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company submits that the claimants instituted the compensation claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation of Rs. 1,35,90,000/- on account of death of Rajendra Yadav S/o Late Ram Chandra Yadav in a motor vehicle accident involving a Vehicle (Bus) bearing Registration No. JH-02-Z- 4748. He submits that Claimant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are daughters and Claimant No. 2 is minor son of the deceased and Claimant No. 2 is minor and represented through his legal guardian and sister Kiran Kumari. He further submits that in the claim case, it has been alleged that on 09.05.2019, the deceased Rajendra Yadav was travelling by Tempo bearing registration number-JH-24-C-6884 and when reached near Main Road, Nai Sarai, in left side of the road, in the meantime one Bus bearing Registration No. JH-02-Z-4748 coming from back side being driven rashly and negligently dashed the said Tempo due to which deceased Rajendra Yadav sustained grievous injury. He then submits that thereafter, with the help of people, he was brought to Sadar Hospital but in the way to hospital Rajendra Yadav died. He submits that the deceased left three daughters and one minor son and all were dependent on the income of deceased and after death of the deceased they are hand to mouth.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that on the above backgrounds, the claim case was filed. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has been pleased to award Rs. 1,08,78,148/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of the case i.e. from 08.07.2019 till the date of final realization. He submits that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are not the dependents and they are married sisters, in view of that deduction is not properly made, as such, the award may kindly be modified.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, who are the claimants by way of drawing the attention of the court to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act submits that legal representative can file the claim case. He submits that even before the learned tribunal, the said ground has not been argued and in the written statement also, this point has not been taken by the insurance company. He relied in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Versus Birender & Ors. reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356, where in paras-12 and 14, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

“12. The legal representatives of the deceased could move application for compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section 166(1). The major married son who is also earning and not fully dependent on the deceased, would be still covered by the expression “legal representative” of the deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera [Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 643 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 585] had expounded that liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the legal representative concerned. Notably, the expression “legal representative” has not been defined in the Act. In Manjuri Bera [Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 643 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 585] , the Court observed thus: (SCC pp. 647-48, paras 9-12)

“9. In terms of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 166