Telangana High Court

K.Sudhesh Anand Anr vs E.Seetharama Raju Anr on 17 March, 2022

Bench: G Sri Devi

              HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                    M.A.C.M.A. No.4693 of 2008

JUDGMENT:

Challenging the award and decree, dated 08.08.2008

passed in O.P.No.10 of 2006 on the file of the Special Judge for

the Trial of Offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-VI

Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Additional Chiarman,

MACT-cum-XX Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad (for short

"the Tribunal"), the claimants filed the present appeal,

whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim-petition filed

by the claimants.

2. The facts, in issue, are as under:

3. The appellants/claimants, who are the brothers of one

K.Ramesh Anand (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"),

filed a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act

claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of the

deceased, who died in a motor accident that occurred on

20.11.2005 at about 10.45 P.M., in front of Maheshwari Oill Mill,

due to the rash and negligent driving of Lorry Tanker bearing

No.AP 31 T 8457. Since the accident occurred due to the rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry Tanker bearing

No.AP 31 T 8457, the claimants filed the claim-petition against

the respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the

said Lorry Tranker.

4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained

ex parte.

5. The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the averments in

the petition including the manner in which the accident

occurred, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is

specifically contended that the claimants are not dependents

upon the deceased at the time of accident and there was no loss

of estate on account of the death of the deceased. It is also

stated that the accident occurred only due to the rash and

negligent driving of the Maruthi Car bearing No.AP 36 H 8024 in

which the deceased was traveling and that there was no

negligence on the part of the driver of the Lorry Tanker, as

such, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation.

It is also contended that the amount claimed is excessive,

arbitrary and out of all proportions and prayed to dismiss the

petition.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed

the following issues:-

1. Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry Tanker bearing No.AP 31 T 8457 by its driver?

2. What is the just amount that can be awarded as compensation and whom?

3. To what relief?

7. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined

and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents,

no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1-copy of policy was

marked.

8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on

record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants

are elder brothers of the deceased, they married and living

separately, so in such circumstances claimants are not

dependents on the deceased to claim compensation, hence they

are not entitled for compensation due to death of the deceased

in the accident and accordingly dismissed the claim-petition.

Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed.

9. Heard both sides and perused.

10. Considering the rival submissions made by the Counsel

appearing on both sides, the point that arises for consideration

in this appeal is whether the claimants, who are the elder

brothers of the deceased and not financially dependent on the

deceased, are entitled to compensation on account of death of

the deceased or not?

11. In Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. &

another1 the Apex Court has considered the question whether a

married daughter, not dependant on the deceased, is entitled to

file a claim petition for the death of her father. While

answering the said question, the Apex Court held that "even

though there is no loss of dependency, the claimant, if he or she

is a legal representative, will be entitled to compensation, the

quantum of which shall not be less than the liability under

Section 140 of the Act.

12. In Dr.Gangaraju Sowmini v. Alavala Sudhakar Reddy

and another Full Bench of erstwhile A.P. High Court, after

placing reliance on the judgment of Manjuri Bera's case (1

supra) held that an application for compensation can be made

(2007) 10 SCC 643

AIR 2016 Hyderabad 162

either by the injured or the legal representatives of the

deceased. Dependency is a matter, which would have a bearing

on the issue with regard to fixation of compensation and

apportionment of compensation if there are more than one

claimant. It is apt to reproduce the relevant observations as

contained in paras 14 and 16 of the judgment, which read thus:

"14. In view of the plain language under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is a substantive provision for making application for compensation, it is clear that either the injured person or the legal representative of the deceased, are entitled to make an application for award of compensation. Dependency is a matter, which will have a bearing on the issue with regard to fixation of compensation and apportionment of compensation if there are more than one claimant, but at the same time, in view of the plain and unambiguous language used under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the term legal representative does not mean dependant only. It is fairly well settled that the legal representative is one who can represent the estate of the deceased. Further, in the judgment in Manjuri Beras case the Honble Supreme Court has held that the no fault liability envisaged under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is distinguishable from the rule of strict liability. In the aforesaid judgment, it is further held that right to make an application has to be considered in the

background of right to entitlement. It is further held that while assessing the quantum of compensation, the multiplier system is applied because of deprivation of dependency. In the same judgment, it is also held that since the amount to be awarded under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is a fixed/crystalised amount, the same is to be considered as a part of the estate of the deceased. Apart from the same, there can be a claim for compensation under other conventional heads which are to be necessarily incurred in the case of deaths.

15. xxxxxx

16. In view of the clear and unambiguous language under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is clear that application can be made either by the injured or the legal representatives of the deceased. Though legal representative is not defined under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, from Rule 2(g) of the A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, it is clear that the definition of legal representative is given same meaning as defined under Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Manjuri Beras case, it is clear that the compensation which is payable on account of no fault liability will form part of the estate of deceased. In that view of the matter, there is no basis for contending that the application is to be filed only by the dependants. As we have held that dependency is a matter to be taken into consideration for award of compensation and merely because one is not dependant, that by itself, is no ground for not entertaining any claim made for grant of

compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. In view of the clear language under Section 166 of the Act and in view of the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Manjuri Beras case, wherein, it is held that the compensation to be awarded under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act will form part of the estate of deceased, and further, as the Act also provides for compensation on other conventional heads, we are of the view that the non-dependant also can lay a claim by filing application under Section 166 of the Act. It is also to be noticed that the situations may arise, where, one may have suffered injuries initially but ultimately after filing a claim, may have succumbed to such injuries also. In such an event, lot of amount would be spent towards hospitalisation etc., and as already discussed in the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Montford Brothers case, it is common in the Indian society, where, the members of the family who are not even dependant also can extend their support monetarily and otherwise to the victims of accidents to meet the immediate expenditure for hospitalization etc., in such cases, unless the legal representatives are allowed to continue the proceedings initiated by the person who succumbs to injuries subsequently, such claims will be defeated and that will also defeat the very object and intentment of the Act. Any such measure would be wholly unequitable and unjust. Plainly, that would never be intent of any piece of legislation. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the language under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w. Rule 2(g) of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules,

1989, we are of the view that even the legal representatives who are non- dependants can also lay a claim for payment of compensation by making application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

13. Recently, in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Birender and Others3, the Apex Court held that as per the

proposition laid down in Manjuri Bera Case (1 Supra), the legal

representatives are entitled to claim compensation and not to

the limit of conventional heads i.e. fixed amount of loss of

estate, but as per the quantified and calculated loss of estate

that the deceased would have left and the same is to be

awarded to the legal representatives as inherited by them.

14. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court

in Manjuri Bera's case (1 supra), the claimants, who are not

financially dependent on the deceased, are entitled to

Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Apart