Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 5441
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL, J
Smt. Ramadevi Rajput – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Kumar Chourasia – Respondent
MA 3209/2023
Kapil Patwardhan,
Legal representatives can claim compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act regardless of dependency, as established by the definition in Section 2(11) of CPC.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Section 173(1) - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Sections 8, 9, 11, and 19 - Appeal for enhancement of compensation - Legal representatives can claim compensation irrespective of dependency - The appellant, as a sister, is entitled to compensation despite not being a Class I heir - The Tribunal's award was inadequate. (Paras 2, 20, 28)
(B) Legal Representatives - Definition under Section 2(11) of CPC - Legal representatives include those who may not be dependents but are entitled to claim compensation. (Paras 6, 21)
(C) Quantum of Compensation - The calculation of compensation must consider the deceased's income, future prospects, and personal expenses. (Paras 26, 28)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a married sister of the deceased, filed an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, arguing her entitlement as a legal representative despite not being a dependent.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant is a legal heir and entitled to compensation, recalculating the compensation amount to Rs.7,14,168/-, enhanced by Rs.6,48,168/-.
Issues: The main issues were whether the appellant qualifies as a legal representative under the Hindu Succession Act and the appropriate quantum of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that legal representatives can claim compensation regardless of dependency, and the calculation of compensation must reflect the deceased's income and future prospects.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claimant's entitlement as legal representative (Para 2) |
| 2. respondent's objection to claim (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 3. legal heir definition and dependency (Para 5) |
| 4. compensation recalculated and enhanced (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
ORDER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the award dated 14.7.2022 passed in MACC No.240/2018 by Third Addl. MACT, Damoh seeking enhancement of compensation amount.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant after referring to M.A.No.2893/2004 (The New India Assurance Vs. Smt. Nalini and others) submits that in view of definition of legal representative as provided in section 2 (11) of CPC, sisters can file claim petition for compensation in relation to death of her brother in motor vehicle. There is no requirement of any law that claimants are required to be dependent on deceased, instead, if claimants are legal representative of deceased then they can file claim petition for compensation. Though, claimant/ appellant is not dependent on deceased, still, she can claim compensation. On above grounds, it is urged that suitable compensation be awarded.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents after referring to section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, as well as Schedule 1 attached with section 8 submits that appellant is sister of deceased. Therefore, she is not legal heir of deceased under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. Brother of deceased/appellant are alive but they have not filed claim petition. Further, appellant is not dependent on deceased. Appellant is married. Hence, appellant is not legal representative of deceased. Therefore, appellant /claimant is not entitled to receive any compensation. With respect to above, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bela Ghosh 2023 (4) TAC 890 (Cal.) On above grounds, it is urged that appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that appellant has valued the present appeal for Rs.1,00,000/-, therefore, if appeal is allowed, then, enhancement be restricted to Rs.1,00,000/- only.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
6. Crux of the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company’s submission is that the appellant being married and deceased being brother of the appellant, appellant is not legal heir \of her deceased brother under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, she is not entitled to receive any compensation. In this connection, learned counsel for the respondent insurance company has referred to section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as well as he has relied upon in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Bela Ghosh and others, 2023 (4) TAC 890 (Cal.) Where as on the contrary, learned counsel for the appellant claimant after relying upon New India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nalini Verma (supra) submits that sister and brother of deceased will come within the definition of legal representative as provided in section 2 (11) of CPC. Therefore, appellant is entitled to receive compensation.
7. With respect to controversy involved in the case, Section 8 (b) , 9 , 11 and 19 of Hindu Succession Act , 19 56 and schedule attached to Section 8 are relevant.
8. Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, is as follows:-
“8. General rules of succession in the case of males
(a)***********
(b) secondly, if there is no heir class-I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class-II of schedule;
(c)*************
(d)**********”
9. Thus, from above, it is evident that class II heirs got only in the absence of any one of the Class I heirs (Section 9). In Class II there are nine entries and some of them contain more than one heir. The heirs in an entry exclude the heirs in subsequent entries (section 9). If there are no heirs i
