ORISSA HIGH COURT
Sanjay Kumar Mishra, J.
Kabita Nath – Petitioner
versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Cuttack and Anr. – Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.6144 of 2023
Decided on 24.12.2024
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 32 Rule 4 – Suit by a minor – In terms of provisions under Order 32 Rule 4 CPC, any person who is of sound mind, who has attained majority, who can represent and protect interest of minor, who is a resident of India and whose interest is not adverse to that of minor, may represent minor as his/her “next friend” – But such person, who is representing minor Plaintiff as a next friend, shall not be party to same suit as Defendant – Not only is there no provision for appointment of next friend by court, but permission of court is also not necessary. (Para 28)
Result: Writ Petition disposed of with observation and direction.
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kumar Mishra, J.—This writ petition has been preferred by the Petitioner, who is the married daughter and one of the legal representatives of Late Nilamani Nath, challenging the order dated 15.11.2022 so also dated 02.01.2023, under Annexure-1 Series, passed by the 3rd M.A.C.T-cum-A.D.J, Jagatsinghpur, vide which the substitution petition was partly allowed and petition to recall the order dated 15.11.2022 stood rejected.
2. The factual matrix of the case, as detailed in the Writ Petition, is that Late Nilamani Nath and his wife, in an accident, sustained grievous injuries while travelling in a public service passenger bus bearing registration No.OD-04- 6944. They were shifted to S.C.B Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack from Kendrapara District Government Hospital for better treatment, wherein the injured Nilamani Nath was declared as permanently disabled and treated as post hospitalized bedridden patient.
3. The Kendrapara Sadar Police registered P.S. Case No.61 of 2016 against the driver of the offending bus. Accordingly, charge-sheet was submitted under Section 279/337/338 of I.P.C. On 6.4.2022, the Court below, after hearing the parties, awarded a sum of Rs.3,60,400/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing claim application till the date of payment to be made by the Opposite Party No.2 i.e. National Insurance Company Limited.
4. On 14.12.2021 i.e. before pronouncement of the Judgment, the injured Nilamani Nath, who is the Claimant/ Petitioner in MAC No. 136 of 2016, died leaving behind his injured wife i.e. the Petitioner in MAC No. 135/2016 as his legal heir, who also died on 23.07.2022. The elder married daughter of the deceased claimants namely, Banita Nath died on 30.05.2014 leaving behind the minor daughter namely, Subhalaxmi Nath as her legal heir. Accordingly, the legal heir certificate of the deceased claimants/(Petitioners in MAC Case No.135/2016 and MAC Case No.136/2016), was issued by the office of the Tahasildar, Mahakalpada in favour of the surviving married daughter Kabita Nath and Subhalaxmi Nath, the minor daughter of Late Banita Nath. The Petitioner, being the younger married daughter of the deceased, filed a petition on 14.10.2022 for substituting the legal representatives in MAC No.135 of 2016 so also in MAC No.136 of 2016 and for disbursing the awarded compensation amount in favour of surviving legal heirs of the deceased. However, the Court below, vide order dated 15.11.2022 rejected the substitution petition in MAC No.136 of 2016 contrary to the provisions under Section 165 (c) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, shortly, “M.V. Act, 1988”, so also Rule 20 of Orissa Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rule, 1960, shortly, “The Rules, 1960” and also the provisions under Order XXII of CPC, 1908.
5. The case of the Petitioner is that before rejection of the substitution application filed by the writ petitioner the National Insurance Company Limited i.e. Opposite Party No.2, has already deposited the compensation amount before the Court below after deducting some amount towards income tax in the name of the deceased. On 02.01.2023 the writ petitioner again filed a petition before the Tribunal by executing a Vakalatnama signed by herself so also to represent the minor daughter of another deceased married daughter of Late Nilamani Nath, praying for necessary correction of the judgment dated 06.04.2022 by substituting the names of the legal heirs and to recall the order dated 15.11.2022. But the said recall petition was also rejected by the Court below on technical ground. Hence, this writ petition.
6. A Counter Affidavit has been filed by the Opposite Party No.2 challenging the maintainability of the writ petition. It has been stated that, after disposal of MACT Case No.136 of 2016 awarding Rs.3,60,400/- in favour of the Claimant, the Petitioner along with Subhalaxmi Nath (minor daughter of the deceased daughter of Late Nilamani Nath) filed a petition for substituting them as the
Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan vs. Thekittil Gopalankutty Nair
N. Jayasree and Ors vs. Cholamandalam M/S General Insurance Company Ltd.
Gurnam Singh (D) Thr. Lrs vs. Gurbachan Kaur (D) by Lrs
Smt. Manjuri Bera vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.
Custodian of Branches of Banco National Ultramarino vs. Nalini Bai Naique
Gujurat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Anr.
Suit by a minor – Not only is there no provision for appointment of next friend by court, but permission of court is also not necessary.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realizatio....
Legal representatives can claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act regardless of dependency proof, emphasizing inclusive definitions and rights established by precedent.
To maintain a claim petition it is sufficient for the claimant to establish that there is loss of dependency and every legal representative who suffers on account of death of a person in a motor vehi....
Legal representatives under the Motor Vehicles Act must be interpreted broadly to include those dependent on the deceased, not solely legal heirs.
Legal representatives under the Motor Vehicles Act can claim compensation even if not dependents, affirming broader interpretations of eligible claimants.
Legal representatives can file for compensation without proving dependency; statutory compensation fixed under Section 140(2) forms part of the deceased's estate.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.