IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma CO 1820 of 2023 Tarun Paramanik Vs.

Jharna Paramanik & Ors.

For the petitioners: Mr. Jayanta Kr. Mondal, Adv., Mr. Sayantan Rakshit, Adv.

For the opposite party no. 1 & 2: Mr. Tapas Dey, Adv., Mr. Prasenjit Saha, Adv.

For the respondent no.3: Ms. Sucharita Paul, Adv.

Reserved on: 29.10.2025 Judgment on: 19.11.2025 Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.:

1. Briefly, stated the facts are that Late Jamuna Pramanik and opposite party no. 1 and 2 Smt. Jharna Pramanik and Satarupa Pramanik filed a claim case no. being MAC 61 of 2015 on account of death of Shri. Kishore Pramanik under Motor Vehicle Act. During the pendency of the petition Smt. Jharna Pramanik mother of the deceased expired. The petitioner herein filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC for impleading the legal heirs of Late Smt. Jamuna Pramanik. The said application was dismissed by the learned tribunal vide order dated December 6, 2022 primarily on the ground that the legal heirs of late Jharna Pramanik were not dependent upon the income of the deceased. The petitioner aggrieved of this has filed this petition, challenging the impugned order predominantly on the ground that learned tribunal failed to appreciate that since petitioner no.3 late Jamuna Pramanik, mother of the deceased expired during the pendency of the petition, her legal heirs are entitled to her share of compensation as per law of succession. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that if the legal heirs are not substituted the claim of late Jamuna Pramanik shall extinguish.

2. Learned Counsel for the opposite party has vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the learned tribunal has rightly dismissed the application for substitution of legal heir. Learned counsel submits that provisions of Order 22 shall not be applicable in the present proceedings. Learned counsel further submits that initially the brothers and sisters of the deceased, who are seeking to be impleaded, did not file the claim petition as the dependant legal heir/representative of the deceased and, therefore, on account of death of Late Jamuna Pramanik the petitioner and opposite party no. 5 and 8 cannot be impleaded. Learned counsel further submits that on the death of the mother of the deceased now the claim shall only be divided amongst the opposite party no.1 and 2. Reliance has been placed upon Balak Ram vs. Leela Devi & Ors., 2025 HSC 18262.

3. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 provides that in case of a death resulting from the accident, all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased may file an application for compensation. It is pertinent to mention here that Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act is a piece of benevolent legislation and, therefore, the interpretation of the provisions has to be done by the Court in accordance with the intention of the legislature. The endeavor of the court should be to fulfill the purpose of law. It is also necessary to mention here that, “right to apply for compensation” and “entitlement to compensation” are two different issues. The person who has applied for compensation cannot straightway lead to conclusion that such claimant is entitled to compensation. The “dependency” and “entitlement” to compensation would depend upon the evidence and material produced during the trial. The Courts time and again, have given a wider interpretation to the concept of persons entitled to claim compensation.

4. It is a settled proposition that Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (amended from time to time) Act creates new and enlarged right for filing an application for compensation and such right cannot be limited by the limitations on an action under Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, being Act XIII of 1855. Reliance may be placed upon Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad vs.

Raman Bhai, Prabhat Bhai, 1987 ACJ 1279.

5. It is also necessar