JUDGMENT:

The present appeal is arising out of the orders in O.P No.2009 of 2018, dated 23.06.2011, on the file of XXII Additional Chief Judge-Cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, City Criminal Court at Hyderabad.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in O.P No.2009 of 2018.

3. The appellants are the claimants and are the legal heirs of the deceased namely Ms.Kurra Renuka, who died in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27.02.2007.

4. The claimants filed the O.P under section 163-A of the M.V Act,1988 seeking compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- with costs and interest, for the death of the deceased namely Ms. K.Renuka, who died in the accident. The said accident occurred when the deceased and her family members were proceeding to Shirdi, from Biwandi in a Tata Sumo bearing No.MH 05G 0691 and when they travelled for 7 K.Ms towards East of Bavi, a truck bearing No. MH 17K 9810 came in opposite direction and dashed against the Tata Sumo, as a result, the deceased died on the spot. Basing on the report of inmates of the vehicle, a case was registered against the driver of the truck vide Crime No.31 of 2007, for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304, 338 and 427 of IPC, on the file of Bavi Police Station. It is the specific contention of the claimants that the deceased was 25 years old and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month by doing toddy business and the claimants are dependant on the earnings of the deceased.

5. A detailed written statement was filed by respondent No.2/Insurance Company denying the age, occupation, income and liability of respondent No.2 and prayed to dismiss the O.P, as it is devoid of merits. The respondent No.4 also pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Tata Sumo and the accident did not occur due to the negligence of the driver.

6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, has dismissed the O.P with a finding that the claimants are not the legal heirs of the deceased. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal, the claimants have filed the present appeal.

7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal did not appreciate the facts in proper perspective and dismissed the O.P. He has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another1, wherein, their Lordships have held as follows;

“‘Legal representative’ has not been defined in the Act. However, a legal representative ordinarily means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person or a person on whom the estate devolves on the death of an individual. The proviso to sub-section(1) of section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act appears to be of some significance. It provides that the application for compensation shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased. Section 110-A(1) thus expressely states that (i) an application for compensation may be made by the legal representatives of the deceased or their agent, and (ii) that such application shall be made on behalf of or for

1 AIR 1987 SC 1690

the benefit of all the legal representative. Both the person or persons who can make an application for compensation and the persons for whose benefit such application can be made are thus indicated is under Section 110-A. This section in a way is a substitute to the extent indicated above for the provisions of Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act,1855 which provides that “every such action or suit shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent and child, if any, of the person whose death shall have been so caused, and shall be brought by and in the name of the executor, administrator or representative of the person deceased”. While the Fatal Accidents Act provides that such suit shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent and child of the deceased, section 110-A(1) of the