Gujarat High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Narendrabhai Rasikbhai Patel on 12 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4935/2018 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4935 of 2018
==========================================================
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD
Versus
NARENDRABHAI RASIKBHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SUNIL B PARIKH(582) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DINESH B PATEL(3495) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR PRATIK G ADVANI(10574) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 12/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant - Insurance Company being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 23.08.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.960 of 2003.
2. Heard learned advocates for respective parties.
3. The issue raised by Insurance Company in present Appeal is that brother cannot be treated as dependency upon deceased. The issue is no more res-integra in view of judgment of this Court in the case of Prernaben @ Purviben Mansukhlal Mehta v/s. Daudkhan Usmankhan Belim [First Appeal No.3776 of 2006 and allied matters], whereby, this Court referred to series of Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Feb 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 02:45:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4935/2018 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2025 undefined judgments on the subject matter. This Court also referred to definition of legal representative defined in section 2(11) of CPC; also referred to judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v/s. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai [(1987) 3 SCC 234] referred in the case of Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel v/s. United India Insurance [(2014) 3 SCC 394], whereby, disciple of monk is stated to be legal representative and permitted to file petition under Section 166 of MV Act. Yet another judgment was referred in the case of N. Jayasree v/s. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. [2022 (14) SCC 712], whereby mother in law was treated to be dependent of the deceased. In Hafizun Begum (Mrs.) v/s. Mohd. Ikram Heque (2007) 10 SCC 715, it was held as under :-
"7. ...12. As observed by this Court in Custodian of Branches of Banco National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 275 the definition contained in Section 2(11) CPC is inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is not confined to legal heirs only. Instead, it stipulates that a person who may or may not be legal heir, competent to inherit the property of the deceased, can represent the estate of the deceased person. It includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate even without title either as executors or administrators in possession of the estate of the deceased. All such persons would be covered by the expression 'legal representative'. As observed in Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai3 a legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child."
4. In view of above, submission of learned advocate Mr.Parikh that brother cannot be treated as dependent upon other brother cannot accepted. Term legal representative stated in section Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Feb 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 02:45:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4935/2018 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2025 undefined 166(1) of MV Act permits the claimant to prefer claim petition for getting compensation under various heads for injuries received out of road accident. The word dependent or dependency cannot be given restrictive meaning and continued only to financial dependency and therefore, the claim petition at the instance of the brother is maintainable. The submission of learned advocate Mr.Parikh that brother cannot be treated as dependency of other brother is not acceptable.
5. Learned Tribunal decided loss of dependency and under same methodology, assessing compensation for loss of estate can be assessed.
6. For the reasons recorded above, the first appeal sans merits and accordingly, it is dismissed. The Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon, if any, to the claimant, by account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due procedure. While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SATISH Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Feb 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 02:45:33 IST 2025