Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
(Madurai Bench)
S.Vimala J
Sevakkal & anr. v. M.Valarmathi & Ors.
C.M.A.(MD)No.448 of 2012 dtd. 3.8.2012
(B)Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(59 of 1988)-Sec.140, 163, 166-Motor accident-Death-Compensation- Married daughter-Legal representative-Dependent- Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the legal representative of the deceased would be entitled for compensation on account of love and affection, loss of consortium and funeral expenses and for that purpose, one need not be a dependent, who had been on actual financial dependency upon the earning of the deceased.
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act uses the expression "legal representative" and not dependant. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not define the expression "legal representative" either in Section 166 or in any of the definitions in Section 2 of the Act. Therefore, the definition of "legal representative" as provided under Section 2(11) of Civil Procedure Code has to be referred to. Thus, a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person or a person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased, would be the legal representative of the deceased. It is the status of the claimants as legal representative that counts. The status as dependent may be one of the factor, when a claim is made for loss of dependency. To claim compensation on account of loss of love and affection, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, one need not be a dependent, who had been on actual financial dependency upon the earning of the deceased. The status of the claimants as the legal representatives of the deceased that counts. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the claimants are not entitled for compensation on account of loss of love and affection, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, has no basis. Para 14
(C)Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(59 of 1988)-Sec.140, 163, 166-Motor accident-Death-Compensation-Computation-Beggar-Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the death of a person in motor accident, what could have been the loss for the family has to be assessed having regard to the contribution made by the deceased in the past, in praesenti as well as the likely contribution in future.
It is settled law that life of a human being, in a democratic country, cannot be weighed in golden scales. It is not the life in the immediate past, which should be the basis for quantification, but it is the life covering past, present and future, are also to be considered while assessing the loss. What could have been the loss for the family has to be assessed having regard to the contribution made by the deceased in the past, in praesenti as well as the likely contribution in future. The life, after all, rests on hope only. Even assuming that the deceased was living a wayward life, it is quite probable that, if there is a change of mind, any time he would have joined the family.
Para 15
(D)Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(59 of 1988)-Sec.140, 163, 166-Motor accident-Death-Compensation-Married daughter-Legal representative-Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a married daughter is entitled to claim compensation for the death of her parents in motor accident.
The married daughter, as the legal representative as well as the dependent of the deceased to certain extent, would be depending upon the income of her father. The emotional dependency, psychological dependency and other dependencies, cannot be said to be nullified immediately after the marriage. Therefore, the married daughter is also entitled to claim compensation. The services of the father cannot be equated to that of the services rendered by the ATM machine. Para 16
2.The first claimant is the wife and the second claimant is the daughter of the deceased-Karuppaiah, who filed a claim petition for compensation, claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in respect of the death of the deceased in an accident that took place on 08.07.2006.
3.The claim petition was filed against the owner and insurer of two lorries, bearing Registration Nos.TN-46-D-1741 (R1 and R2) and TN-28-E-7373 (R3 and R4). The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation only on account of the loss of dependency and the second respondent- Insurance Company was directed to pay the compensation and the claim was dismissed as against the fourth respondent - Insurance Company.
4.The claimants have filed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. It is the claim of the appellants / claimants that:
1)The Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation for loss of love and affection, loss of consortium and funeral expenses;
2)The Tribunal ought to have found that the deceased was the only bread-winner of the family;
3)The Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier method of compensation; and
4)the Tribunal ought to have awarded more than what is claimed in the claim petition.
5.In order to appreciate the contentions raised, it is necessary to look into the details of award passed by the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal, while giving a finding that the deceased was a beggar, quantified the compensation by adopting the following principle / assumption.
1)The deceased was taken as non-earning person;
2)The notional income for a non-earning member was fixed at Rs.15,000/- and 1/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses, and the multiplier adopted was 5. Thus a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been arrived at, which was awarded towards loss of dependency.
6.The compensation of Rs.50,000/- was ordered to be payable to the first claimant, i.e., the wife of the deceased. Insofar as the second claimant is concerned, it was disallowed on the ground that the second claimant was married and hence no longer dependent on the deceased. There is a specific finding that as the deceased was a wayward, living elsewhere, as a beggar, the first and second claimants were not entitled to any compensation on account of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection, respectively. No amount was awarded towards funeral expenses also.
7.The order passed by the Tribunal and the findings arrived at by the Tribunal, raises the following issues:
1)What was the status of the deceased?
2)Whether the married daughter is entitled to claim compensation or not?
3)If yes, whether in the capacity as legal representative or in the capacity as dependent?
4)What is the just compensation to the claimants?
8.The order of the Tribunal proceeds on the footing that the deceased deserted the claimants long back and adorned the life of a beggar, leading a wayward life and therefore, he would not have been of much help to the dependents. The finding of the Tribunal that he was leading a life of beggary, is under challenge.
9.A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal would go to show that on the side of the appellants/claimants, the only witness examined is the second claimant-Selvi. Admittedly, the first claimant/wife of the deceased, has not been examined. The second claimant would state in her evidence that the deceased was the only bread-winner of the family and both the claimants were living on the earnings of the deceased. On the side of the respondents, one Archunan has been examined, who is the Head Constable attached to Karuppayurani Police Station. He stated about the materials collected during the investigation of the accident (in which the deceased died), which pertains to Crime No.501 of
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
