The Motor Vehicle Act allows a broad interpretation of 'legal representative' for compensation claims, ensuring that all dependents, including parents, can seek relief regardless of their living situation.

JUDGEMENT

.By the present Appeal the Appellant-Insurance company challenges the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (‘MACT’ for short) Mumbai, allowing the Claim Petition of dependents of the deceased.

2.The Appeal primarily raises two grounds (i) income of the deceased is erroneously taken at Rs.6000/- per month and (ii) the second submission is that the parents of the deceased were staying at a different place and, where not dependent on the deceased and, were not entitled to claim of compensation.

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 13

3.The facts giving raise to this Appeal in brief is as under:-On 25th July 2010 at about 22.30 hours the deceased was crossing a Road and at that time one autorickshaw bearing No.MH-02-UA-8927 came from opposite side in a very rash and negligent manner and gave dash to the deceased. Due to the said dash deceased was thrown away from the place of the accident and he sustained injuries. Thereafter, he was moved to specaility hospital and died on 31st July 2010. The Police registered an offence against the driver of the autorickshaw. On demise of the accident victim the Claim Petition was filed by his wife, daughter, son and parents of the deceased. The Tribunal on consideration of the material held that the autorickshaw driver was negligent in driving. However, the Claimant’s were not able to established the income of the deceased as the employer was not examined but held that the deceased being a skilled labourer, a notional income of Rs.6,000/- per month is considered. Accordingly, Tribunal computed the compensation at Rs.14,14,000/- and apportioned it in terms of the final order between the Claimants.N.S. Kamble page 3 of 13

4.Challenging the above order passed by the MACT, the learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the notional income of Rs.6,000/- ought not to have been fixed. However, there is no merit in the submission of the Appellant as the deceased was a skilled worker and in the year 2010, it cannot be said that, he could have been earning less than Rs.6,000/- per month. The submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company as regards the income of the deceased, is rejected.

5.The second submission of the Appellant is that the parents of the deceased were staying separately in a different village and as such were not dependent on the deceased and thus not entitled for the Claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (‘M.V. Act’ for short).

6.The issue of dependency and right to Claim compensation by legal representative is considered in various judgments of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Montford Brothers of St Gabriel & Ors V/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 1 , has held that every legal representative who 12014 ACJ 667 N.S. Kamble page 4 of 13 suffers on account of the death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realiazation of compensation and it relies upon the principles of law of Torts that every injury must have a remedy.

7. The Supreme Court Montford Brothers (Supra) accepted the judgment of the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Sudama Devi V/s. Jogendra Choudhary 2 , wherein its held that the term ‘legal representative’ is wide enough to include even the successors to the trusteeship and trust property are legal representatives within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

8. The Supreme Court in the case of N. Jayshree & Ors. V/s. Cholamandalam MS general Insurance Co. Ltd. 3 while interpreting the word “legal representative” in the M.V. Act at paragraph Nos.14 and 16 observed as under:-

14. The MV Act does not define the term ‘legal representative’. Generally, ‘legal representative’ means a person who in law represents the estate of the deceased person and includes any person or persons in whom legal right to receive compensatory benefit vests. A ‘legal representative’ 2 AIR 1987 Patna 239 32021 ACJ 2685 N.S. Kamble page 5 of 13 may also include any person who intermeddl