SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(Mad) 293

Madras High Court
RAMANUJAM,SETHURAMAN
Ranganathan - Appellant
Versus
K.Gangabai - Respondent
Decided On : 08/12/1981

Advocates:
K. N. Balasubramanian and T. Dhyanakumar, for Appellant; M. Francis Rayar and T. M. Saminathan, for Respondents.

A Class II heir under the Hindu Succession Act can maintain a claim petition for compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, in a representative capacity for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased, provided that the procedure set down in the proviso to Section 110-A is followed.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTION 110-A - FATAL ACCIDENT - CLAIM PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - FATHER OF DECEASED - LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE - CLASS II HEIR - RIGHT TO CLAIM COMPENSATION - REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY - AMENDMENT OF PETITION - IMPLEADING OTHER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AS RESPONDENTS.

Fact of the Case:

A father filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, seeking compensation for the death of his 6-year-old son, who was killed in a road accident involving a lorry. The Tribunal dismissed the petition on the ground that the father, being a Class II heir under the Hindu Succession Act, could not maintain the petition without impleading the mother, who was a Class I heir, as a co-petitioner or respondent.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the father, as a Class II heir, could maintain the claim petition in a representative capacity for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased. However, the court found that the father had not followed the procedure set down in the proviso to Section 110-A, which requires that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in the application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined shall be impleaded as respondents to the application.

Issues: 1. Whether a Class II heir under the Hindu Succession Act can maintain a claim petition for compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, without impleading the Class I heir as a co-petitioner or respondent? 2. Whether the father, as a Class II heir, can maintain the claim petition in a representative capacity for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the expression 'legal representative' occurring in Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, should be understood as including all those persons referred to in Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act, which admittedly includes a parent of the deceased. 2. The court further held that the proviso to Section 110-A has been introduced to avoid multifarious claims in respect of the same accident and to ensure that one legal representative does not get the compensation and run away with it without the knowledge of the other legal representatives.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the claim petition to the Tribunal to enable the father to amend the petition as one filed in representative capacity and to implead the other legal representatives as respondents within two months from the date of receipt of the records by the Tribunal.

Judgement

RAMANUJAM, J. :- This appeal has been filed by the claimant in M.A.C.T.O.P. No.12 of 1977, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pondicherry. against the order rejecting the claim on the ground that the claimant in the claim petition being the father of the deceased is not a legal representative and as such he cannot maintain the claim petition for the dealth of his son in an accident.

2. On 17-3-1977 at about 4.30 p.m. at Cuddalore main road, opposite to the A. F.T. New Mills at Mudaliarpet, Pondicherry lorry bearing registration number PYS 7857, belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, dashed against one Shivkumar, aged about 6 years, resulting in his instantaneous death. Alleging that the said fatal accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver, the father of the deceased filed the said claim petition M.A.C.T.O.P. 12 of 1977, claiming a compensation of Rs. 30,000/-, from the

owner, the insurer and the driver of the vehicle who had been respectively added as respondents 1 to 3 in the claim petition.

3. The said claim petition was resisted by all the three respondents. Their defence was that the lorry was not driven in a rash and negligent manner, that the deceased who is of tender age suddenly crossed the road and met with the accident, that the deceased was not properly looked after and maintained by his parents, that in any event the petitioner not being the legal heir to claim the compensation while the mother is alive is not entitled to file the claim petition that only in the absence of the mother who is a Class I heir, the father as Class II heir could file a claim petition and that the compensation claimed is, in any event, excessive.

4. On these rival contentions, the Tribunal took up the question as to whether the claim petition filed by the father of the deceased while mother is alive, is maintainable at all as a preliminary issue. The Tribunal found that the mother of the deceased is a class I heir under the Hindu Succession Act is alive and that the father of the deceased who is only a class II heir, cannot maintain the petition without impleading the mother as a co-petitioner or as a respondent. In this view, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition as not mainable without going into the merits of the other issues raised by the parties.

5. In this appeal filed by the appellant claimant, it is contended that even a class II heir under the Hindu Succession Act is entitled to maintain the claim for compensation as regards the death of the deceased the right to get compensation on the death of his son arises under the Fatal Accidents Act and not under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and that, therefore, the expression 'legal representative' occurring in Section 110-A should be understood as including all those persons referred to in Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act which admittedly includes a parent of the deceased. Hence, the appellant being the father of the deceased who died in the accident is entitled to file the claim petition in a representative capacity for the benefit of all. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to the decision reported in Kasturilal v. Prabakar AIR 1971 Madh Pra 145, in support of his contention that a claim petition is a representative action and that one legal representative can maintain a petition on behalf of all the others. However, in this case, the claim petition does not appear to have been filed in a representative capacity by the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the claim petition does not give the details as to who are the other persons who are entitled to claim compensation consequent on the death of the deceased. That one of the legal representatives can file a claim petition is clear from Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act itself. That section says that where death has resulted from the accident, the claim petition can be filed by all or any of the legal represent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top