The entitlement of legal representatives, including non-dependents, to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved by the order and decree dated 21.11.2006 passed in M.V.O.P.No.113 of 2004 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’).

2. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of the death of M.Santosh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 03.11.2003.

3(1) It is stated that on 03.11.2003 at about 8.45 a.m., the deceased was proceeding on his bicycle from Dwarakanagar towards Canara Nagar, Uppal, to attend his duties in Sri Industries and when he reached Jaya Nursing Home, on National Highway No.202, Uppal Depot, one School Bus bearing No.AP 16 T 3699, coming from Uppal towards Ghatkesar side, was driven by its driver rashly and negligently and dashed the deceased’s bicycle from the backside. As a result, the deceased fell and sustained head injury and multiple fracture injuries and died on the spot. The Police, Uppal, registered a case in Cr.No.588 of 2003 against the school bus driver. Hence, the claim petition.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 was set ex-parte, and respondent No.2 filed a counter denying all the allegations made in the petition. They mainly contended that the alleged accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, but it occurred due to negligent riding of the bicycle. They further contended that the petitioner is not the legal heir of the deceased as she was not dependent on the deceased.

5. To prove the case of the petitioner, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A1 to A11. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of respondent No.2, but Ex.B1 was marked.

6. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the petition by awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that deceased was aged 22 years. He worked as a worker in Sri Industries and earning Rs.3,500/- p.m. The deceased was contributing the same to the welfare of his family. Further submitted that petitioner is the sister of the deceased and respondent No.3 is the wife of the deceased, who also had left the deceased long ago, and petitioner is the only legal heir of the deceased and in support of her version, Ex-A.11 Legal Heir Certificate is marked.

8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 contended that the petitioner is not the legal heir of the deceased. The order under challenge suffers no infirmity and as such no interference of this Court is required and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Full Bench Judgment passed by the erstwhile composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the case of Dr.Gangaraju Sowmini V.Alavala Sudhakar Reddy : 2016 (2) ALD 226 (FB) and had drawn the attention of this Court to Para Nos.13, 14 and 16 which reads as:

13. Before we proceed further, we refer to Rule 2(g) of the A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The said Rules are framed in exercise of powers conferred under Sections 28, 38, 95, 96, 107, 111, 138 and 176 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Rule 2(g) defines the word legal representative as under:

“‘Legal representative’ shall have the meaning assigned to it under Clause (11) of Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908)”

From a reading of the provisions under Sections 140, 163-A and 166 of the Act, it is clear that the scheme of the