Entitlement of cousin of deceased for claiming compensation.

K.GNANAPRAKASAM, J.

1.This is an appeal by the claimant.

2.The claimant, as an heir to the estate of Venkatachalam, who died in the motor accident, which took place on 28.5.1989, made a claim of Rs.1,00,000/-.

3.In the claim petition, it is stated that the deceased is the claimant's father's brother's son. But, in the evidence, the claimant had deposed that the deceased Venkatachalam is his brother's son and they are living as a joint family and the properties were not divided among themselves. It is also stated that the parents of the deceased died while he was young and even thereafter, they were all living together. The respondents have denied the relationship claimed by the claimant to the deceased and further stated that the definition of 'legal representatives' as stated in CPC are applicable to the Motor Vehicles Act also and the claimant is a Hindu and therefore, the Hindu Succession Act would be applicable.

4.The claimant, in the petition, has stated that the deceased is his father's brother's son and as such, he is not a Class I heir. His further claim is that the deceased is his brother's son and he would come under entry 7 in Class I heirs. The claimant also filed a legal heir certificate Ex.P13, wherein the relationship of the deceased is stated as 'uncle (rpj;jg;gh)'. It is also stated, in the said certificate that the same was issued only to receive the compensation amount. As there are contradictions between the statement made in the petition and the evidence given, the Tribunal has held that the claimant has not proved his correct relationship to the deceased and therefore, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed.

5.The learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the claimant is the only heir of the deceased Venkatachalam, entitled to receive the compensation. It is further submitted that in the absence of any rival claim, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim made by the appellant.

6.On the contrary, the learned advocate for the respondents 3 and 4, namely, the United India Insurance Company and the Oriental Insurance Company, has submitted that the claimant having failed to prove his correct relationship to the deceased, is not entitled to the claim at all.

7.Now let us see, whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation.

8.The claimant's specific case is that he and the deceased were the members of the joint family and the joint family properties were also not divided. Of course, in the petition, he has stated that the deceased is his father's brother's son and in the evidence, he has stated that the deceased is his brother's son. In the legal heir certificate, it is stated that the deceased is the 'uncle (rpj;jg;gh)', of the claimant. Though there are 3 versions about the relationship of the deceased to the claimant, it is nobody's case that the claimant is not at all related to the deceased. As per the claim made in the petition that the deceased is his father's brother's son and he would not fall under Class I heir of the Hindu Succession Act. In the evidence, he has stated that the deceased is his brother's son and if that be so, the claimant would come under entry 4 of Class II heirs. In the legal heir certificate, the relationship of the deceased to the claimant is stated as 'uncle'. Then the claimant would come under entry 7 of Class II heirs. It is not the case of the respondents that the claimant is not at all related to the deceased. That being so, we could safely come to the conclusion that the deceased is related to the claimant and vice-versa. It is in evidence that on the death of Venkatachalam, there is a loss to the estate, to which the claimant is entitled to.

9.Now, let us consider, who is entitled to apply for compensation, in a motor accident case. In our case, the accident took place on 28.5.1989 and therefore, the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 is applicable. Section 110A of the Act states as follows:-

"Application for compensa