Telangana High Court

Kurra Manemma And 3 Others vs Sai Ganesh Gas Agency, And 3 Others on 23 January, 2023

Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy

      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

                         M.A.C.M.A No.3327 of 2011
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 2 GAC, J MACMA.No.3327 of 2011

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 3 GAC, J MACMA.No.3327 of 2011

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 4 GAC, J MACMA.No.3327 of 2011

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 M.V Act says that the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of the legal representatives of the deceased. A legal representative in a given case need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child. It is further seen from section 110-B that the Claims Tribunal is authorised to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid. This provision takes the place of the third Paragraph of Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act which provides that in every such action, the Court may 5 GAC, J MACMA.No.3327 of 2011

give such damages as it may think proportioned to the loss resulting from such death to the parties respectively, for whom and for whose benefit such action shall be brought. Persons for whose benefit such application can be made and the manner in which the compensation awarded may be distributed amongst the persons for whose benefit the application is made are dealt with by section 110-A and section 110-B and to that extent the provisions of the Fatal Accdents Act in so far as motor vehicles accidents are concerned. These provisions are not merely procedural provisions. They substantively affect the rights of the parties. As the right of action created by the Fatal Accidents Act was "new in its species, new in its quality, new in its principles, in every way new" the right given to the legal representatives under the M.V Act to file an application for compensation for death due to a motor vehicle accident is equally new and an enlarged one. This new right cannot be hedged in by all the limitations of an action under the Fatal Accidents Act. New situations and new dangers require new strategies and new remedies.

Their Lordships have further held that;

"Every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realization of compensation and that is 6 GAC, J MACMA.No.3327 of 2011

provided by under section 110-A to 110-F. These provisions are in consonance with the principles of law of torts that every injury must have a remedy. It is for the Motor Vehicles Accidents Tribunal to determine the compensation which appears to it to be just as provided in Section 110-B and to specify the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid. The determination of the compensation payable and its apportionment as required by section 110-B amongst the legal representatives for whose benefit an application may be filed under Section 110-A have to be done in accordance with well-known prinicples of law. It is to be remembered that in an Indian family brothers, sisters and brother's children and sometimes foster children live together and they are dependent upon the bread-winner of the family and if the bread-winner is killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, there is no justification to deny them compensation relying upon the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act,1855 which has been substantially modified by the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act in relation to cases arising out of motor vehicles accidents."

8. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the

Insurance Company contended that the claimants are not entitled for

any compensation, in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court 7 GAC, J MACMA.No.3327 of 2011

in D.Geetha @ Geetha Rani and others v.P.Jaipal Reddy and

another2, wherein, their Lordships have held as follows;

"17C-Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are minors, who are daughters and son of the deceased - D.Krishna. As petitioner No.4 is the father-in-law of the deceased, he cannot be construed as a legal heir, as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act,1956, and hence, he is not entitled to compensation. Moreover, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that petitioner No.4 died during pendency of the appeals as per the death certificate filed along with a memo by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and, therefore, the appeal against him stands dismissed as abated. When petitioner Nos.1 to 3 who are minors, are dependants on their deceased father and since they are three in number, 1/3rd has to be deducted from the monthly income of the deceased father towards his personal expenses."

At para 18, their Lordships have further held that;

"now coming to the claim petition made in O.P No.1658 of 2006 as against which MACMA No.3545 of 2012 preferred. This claim petition arises out of death of mother of petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and daughter of petitioner No.4 cannot be considered to be a dependent. Morever,

2 2019(6) ALD 16(TS) 8 GAC, J MACMA.No.3327 of 2011

petitioner No.4 died during pendency of the appeals as per the copy of death certificate filed alongwith a memo by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and, therefore, the appeal against him stands dismissed as abated.

9. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender and

Others3, their Lordships have held at para 15 as follows;

"15. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representatives was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. The evidence on record in the present case would suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre income between Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependent on the earnings of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years."

3 AIR 2020 SC 434 9 GAC, J MACMA.No.3327 of 2011

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company

Limited v. Birender and Ors (3 supra), categorically held that only

the children, parents and the wife of the deceased are entitled to be

called as legal representatives and even the major children who are

earning, are entitled for compensation, as per the judgment of this

Court in Geetha Rani's case (2 supra), the father-in-law of the

deceased cannot be construed as the legal heir.

11. Therefore, considering all the rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court

as well as this Court, this court is of the considered view that claimants

in the instant case are not dependant on the earnings of the deceased.

Claimant Nos.1 and 2 are the mother-in-law and sister-in-law and