Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari in the matter of N.Jayasree and Ors. v. Cholamandalam General Insurance Co. Ltd. held that Mother-in-law is a legal representative under MV Act who was dependent upon her deceased son in law and hence Motor Accident claim filed by her is maintainable.
Background
This appeal was directed against the judgment dated 09.08.2017 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. Through the impugned judgment, the High Court scaled down the amount of compensation payable to the present appellants and thereby modified the award dated 26.04.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam (for short ‘MACT’) in OP(MV) No.843 of 2011. Kerela HC held that the mother-in-law of the deceased is not a legal representative under Section 166 of the MV Act and thus not entitled to maintain the claim petition.
Petitioner challenged the Judgement of Kerela HC in the Apex Court.
Observation of the Apex Court
The Supreme Court observed that a motor accident claim petition filed by a mother-in-law who was dependent on her deceased son-in-law is maintainable.
Court highlighted that,
"It is not uncommon in Indian Society for the mother-in-law to live with her daughter and son-in-law during her old age and be dependent upon her son-in-law for her maintenance."
Hon'ble Bench overturned the findings of Kerala HC and held that Petitioner is a "legal representative" under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
In appeal, it was contended that she was living with the deceased and his family members and thus she was entitled to be treated as a legal representative for the purpose of determination of compensation.
The major issue was whether the High Court was justified in precluding the mother-in-law of the deceased as his legal representative.
With respect to the question of inclusion of Mother in law under the head of Legal Representative it was noted that the MV Act does not define the term 'legal representative'.
In General, 'legal representative' means a person who in law represents the estate of the deceased person and includes any person or persons in whom legal right to receive compensatory benefit vests. A 'legal representative' may also include any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased. Such a person does not necessarily have to be a legal heir. Legal heirs are the persons who are entitled to inherit the surviving estate of the deceased. A legal heir may also be a legal representative.
The term' legal representative' should be given a wider interpretation. The court also noted that the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, defines the term 'legal representative' as,
"a person who in law is entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased if he had left any estate at the time of his death and also includes any legal heir of the deceased and the executor or administrator of the estate of the deceased."
Court ordered that,
“In our view, the term 'legal representative' should be given a wider interpretation for the purpose of Chapter XII of MV Act and it should not be confined only to mean the spouse, parents and children of the deceased. As noticed above, MV Act is a benevolent legislation enacted for the object of providing monetary relief to the victims or their families. Therefore, the MV Act calls for a liberal and wider interpretation to serve the real purpose underlying the enactment and fulfil its legislative intent. We are also of the view that in order to maintain a claim petition, it is sufficient for the claimant to establish his loss of dependency. Section 166 of the MV Act makes it clear that every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person in a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for the realization of compensation.”
The court relied upon the case of Hafizun Begum (Mrs) vs. Mohd. Ikram Heque (2007) 10 SCC 715 and Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai (1987) 3 SCC 234 and Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel and Anr. vs. United India Insurance (2014) 3 SCC 394, the court observed that:
"Coming to the facts of the present case, the fourth appellant was the mother-in-law of the deceased. Materials on record clearly establish that she was residing with the deceased and his family members. She was dependent on him for her shelter and maintenance. It is not uncommon in Indian Society for the mother-in-law to live with her daughter and son-in-law during her old age and be dependent upon her son-in-law for her maintenance. Appellant no.4 herein may not be a legal heir of the deceased, but she certainly suffered on account of his death. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that she is a "legal representative" under Section 166 of the MV Act and is entitled to maintain a claim petition”.
The bench allowed the appeal holding Mother in law as Legal Representative if she was dependent on the deceased for her living.
Case Details
CaseTitle: N. Jayasree vs. Cholamandalam Ms. General Insurance Company Ltd.
Bench: Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
