The Motor Vehicles Act, Section 110A, does not confer a new right to claim compensation for death arising out of a motor accident, but only provides an expeditious remedy. The right to claim compensation flows from the Fatal Accidents Act, Section 1A, which specifies the persons entitled to claim compensation as the wife, husband, parent, and child of the deceased.

( 1 ) THIS miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant against an order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, dismissing the claim of the appellant on the ground that the appellant is not entitled to compensation as he does not fall within the category of persons mentioned in the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act.

( 2 ) THIS appeal was heard by a learned single Judge. The learned single Judge felt that the consistent view of this Court as laid down in Kasturilal v. Prabhakar (1970 Acc CJ 1): (AIR 1971 Madh Pra 145) and Suman v. The General manager, M. P. S. R. T Corporation (1970 Acc CJ 280) is that the Motor Vehicles act, Section 110a does not confer a new right but only provides an expeditious remedy and, therefore, except the persons entitled to claim compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act no others, even if they fall within the ambit of the term legal representatives' can claim compensation. The learned Judge, therefore, also felt that the view taken by Hon'ble Shri Justice R. K. Vijaivargiya in Misc. Appeal No. 161 of 1974, decided on 2-4-1979 (Bhagwatidin v. Ghisalal), cannot be accepted and in order to resolve this conflict the learned single Judge has made a reference for seeking an answer to the question :

"whether, apart from the beneficiaries mentioned in Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, who are, also 'legal representatives' of the deceased as contemplated by Section 2 (11) of the C. P. Code, 1908, or, any other legal representatives of the deceased, such as brothers or sisters, who might be the sole heirs of the deceased, are entitled to claim compensation for themselves in proceedings under sections 110-A to 110-F of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, on account of the death of the deceased due to accident, arising from the use of the motor vehicles?"

( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that the appellant is the brother of the deceased, Kalu, who on 31st of December, 1971, at about 6 p. m. was going towards Mhow with a hand pulled cart. An Army truck driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 2 came from Mhow, knocked down Kalu and as a result of this accident he was killed. The appellant, who is the brother of the deceased, Kalu, claims to be the sole heir and, therefore, the legal representative and he filed an application claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- for loss of life of his brother, who was only 25 years old. The respondent-defendants denied the allegations and contended that when respondent No. 2 was driving the vehicle he saw the wooden Thela coming from Manpur side in the middle of the road. He blew the horn, but the person driving the Thela instead of taking it to the left side turned to the right. Respondent No. 2 in order to avert the accident applied brakes and took the vehicle to the left and in such a situation ultimately the collusion took place and the truck was also thrown in a ditch. The truck belonged to the defence department of the Government of India. On these facts the learned claims Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 2, the driver of the vehicle. The learned Tribunal also held that compensation which could be awarded is Rupees 8,925/-and interest at the rate of 6% per annum, but the claim was rejected because the appellant-claimant did not fall within the category of heirs mentioned in Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act. It is against this that the appellant filed the appeal and the learned single Judge hearing the appeal has made this reference. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant frankly conceded that there is a difference of opinion amongst the High Courts on the question as to who could file a petition for claim arising out of a motor accident. He contended that the single Bench decision in Bhagwatidin v. Ghisalal (M. A. No. 161/74. dated 2-41979)* has taken the view that anyone who conies within the ambit of the definition of 'legal represen