Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
S. Manikumar, J.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Poongavanam & Ors. – Respondents
C.M.A. No. 209 of 2012
Decided On : 26-03-2012
Legal Representatives - Entitlement of Married Brothers and Sisters to Claim Compensation - Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another, Vidya Dhar Dubey and others v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Naresh Chandra Agarwal and others, Govindasamy v. Ravi and others, Kishan Lal v. Bharosi Lal, Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C. v. Venkataramappa K.S., New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashwin Vrajlal Rajgor, A. Manavalagan v. A. Krishnamurthy, United India Insurance Company v. Kasiammal, Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. M. Shanthi - Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act allows all legal representatives to claim compensation, irrespective of dependency, following various judgments including Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another reported in 1987 ACJ 561 : (AIR 1987 SC 1690), Vidya Dhar Dubey and others v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation reported in 1997 ACJ 1388: 1998 AIHC 344, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Naresh Chandra Agarwal and others reported in 2000 ACJ 931 : (2001 All LJ 25), Govindasamy v. Ravi and others, reported in 2003 (1) MLJ 253: (AIR 2003 (NOC) 199 (Mad)), Kishan Lal v. Bharosi Lal reported in II (2003) (2) ACC 225, Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C. v. Venkataramappa K.S., reported in III (2003) ACC 457 (DB), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashwin Vrajlal Rajgor reported in 2005 ACJ 1618 : (AIR 2005 (NOC) 483 (Guj)), A. Manavalagan v. A. Krishnamurthy reported in I (2005) ACC 304 (DB) : (2004 AIHC 2656), United India Insurance Company v. Kasiammal reported in 1997 (III) CTC 346, Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. M. Shanthi reported in 2010 CIJ 374 Mad (2) - The court held that married brothers and sisters are entitled to maintain a claim for loss of estate under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act
Fact of the Case:
In an accident, the brother of the respondents/claimants, aged about 55 years, died. The married brothers and sisters claimed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000. The appellant-Insurance Company resisted the manner of accident and objected to the maintainability of the claim petition, arguing that the claimants are neither legal representatives of the deceased nor his dependants.
Finding of the Court:
The Claims Tribunal rejected the appellant-Insurance Company's contentions and awarded Rs. 2,00,000 to the respondents/claimants, who are married brothers and sisters. The court confirmed that married brothers and sisters are entitled to maintain a claim for loss of estate under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether married brothers and sisters are entitled to claim compensation under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on various judgments including Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another, Vidya Dhar Dubey and others v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Naresh Chandra Agarwal and others, Govindasamy v. Ravi and others, Kishan Lal v. Bharosi Lal, Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C. v. Venkataramappa K.S., New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashwin Vrajlal Rajgor, A. Manavalagan v. A. Krishnamurthy, United India Insurance Company v. Kasiammal, Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. M. Shanthi to establish that married brothers and sisters are entitled to maintain a claim for loss of estate under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and the appellant-Insurance Company was directed to deposit the sum with proportionate accrued interest and costs to the credit of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
S. Manikumar, J.
In an accident, which occurred on 24-08-2009, brother of the respondents/claimants, aged about 55 years, said to have been engaged as a Mason, died. Married brothers and sisters, claimed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Though the appellant-Insurance Company has resisted the manner of accident and also objected to the maintainability of the claim petition, on the ground that the claimants are neither legal representatives of the deceased nor his dependants and therefore, the claim for compensation is not maintainable, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Claims Tribunal rejected the said contentions. Fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/-, and deducting 1/3rd towards his personal and living expenses and after applying 8' multiplier to the age of the deceased, the Tribunal computed the dependency compensation at Rs. 1,92,000/-. In addition to the above, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 8,000/- for Funeral Expenses and Transportation and Rs. 500/- towards damage to cloths. Altogether, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- to the respondents/claimants, who are married brothers and sisters.
2. The compensation awarded is assailed on the grounds that both the claimants, married brothers and sisters, are not entitled only to claim any compensation as Dependants and at best, they are entitled to claim under 'No Fault Liability' under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
3. The issue as to whether, a brother and sister of the deceased can maintain a claim petition for compensation has been considered by this Court in In the former case, it was the contention of the appellant-Insurance Company that brother/sister is entitled to claim compensation only under 'No Fault Liability'. Following the decisions of the Apex Court in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another reported in 1987 ACJ 561 : (AIR 1987 SC 1690), Vidya Dhar Dubey and others v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation reported in 1997 ACJ 1388: 1998 AIHC 344, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Naresh Chandra Agarwal and others reported in 2000 ACJ 931 : (2001 All LJ 25), Govindasamy v. Ravi and others, reported in 2003 (1) MLJ 253: (AIR 2003 (NOC) 199 (Mad)), Kishan Lal v. Bharosi Lal reported in II (2003) (2) ACC 225, Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C. v. Venkataramappa K.S., reported in III (2003) ACC 457 (DB), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashwin Vrajlal Rajgor reported in 2005 ACJ 1618 : (AIR 2005 (NOC) 483 (Guj)), A. Manavalagan v. A. Krishnamurthy reported in I (2005) ACC 304 (DB) : (2004 AIHC 2656), this Court held that brother and sister of the deceased are entitled to maintain a claim for loss of estate and accordingly, rejected the said contention.
4. In Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another reported in 1987 ACJ 561 : (AIR 1987 SC 1690), the Gujarat High Court held that all the legal heirs and the Legal Representatives of the deceased can maintain a claim petition under Section 110A (now under Section 166(1)) of the Motor Vehicles Act and consequently, awarded compensation to the nephews of the deceased. Considering the divergence of opinion expressed by various High Courts, as regards the maintainability of the claim petition under Section 110-A (now under Section 166 (1)) of the Motor Vehicles Act, by persons other than the wife, husband, parents and child of a person, who died in a Motor Accident, the Supreme Court on appeal, at Paragraph 10, held as follows :
"10. Clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 110-A of the Act provide that an application for compensation arising out of an accident may be made where death has resulted from the accident by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased or by any agent duly authorised by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 110-A provides that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have
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
