Guidelines related to Legal Representative under motor vehicles Act:

Guidelines related to  Legal Representative under motor vehicles Act:

 As per Section 166(1)(c) of the Act legal representative of the

deceased can prefer a claim petition u/s 166 of the M V Act.

Whereas, Section 163A can be preferred by the legal heirs of the

deceased. Therefore, there is a little difference in the provisions

contained u/Ss 166 and 163A of the M V Act. As stated hereinabove a claim petition u/s 166 can be preferred by the

legal representative of the deceased whereas, a claim petition u/s

163A can be preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased only.

Therefore, one has to understand the difference between 'legal

representative' and 'legal heirs'.

 As per Section 2(11) of the CPC, 'legal representative'

means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased

person and includes any person who intermeddles with The

estate of the deceased and where the party sues or is prosecuted

in a representative manner by the person to whom the estate is

transferred upon the death of the party so suing or sued.

Whereas, the term 'legal heirs' is defined u/s 3(f) of the Hindu

Succession Act, 1956. As per the said provision, heir means ant

person, male or female, who is entitled to succeed to the

property of an instate.

Bare reading of both the definitions, depicts the fact that

there is clear distinction between the terms 'legal representative'

and 'legal heirs'. There is no much confusion with respect to the

term 'legal heirs' but term 'legal representative' always troubled

the judicial minds whether to consider a particular person or

persons as 'legal representative/s' or not. The term 'legal

representative' can be easily understood by some of the ratios

laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts.

1Legal representativebrother & married daughterevidence

That brother and his family was staying with deceased and brother was dependent whether claim petition preferred by brother is maintainable? Held ; yes.

2005 ACJ 1618 (Guj), 2012 AAC 2965 (Mad)2014 ACJ

1454 (Mad), 2015 ACJ 1759 (All)

In all the above referred cases, ratio laid down by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of GSTRC v/s Ramanbhai

Prabhatbhai, 1987 ACJ 561(SC) has been followed.

But in the case of Manjuri Bera v/s O I Com , 2007 ACJ

1279 (SC) it has been observed that where a legal

representative who is not dependent, files an application

for compensation, the quantum cannot be less than the

liability as provided u/s 140 of the Act.

Major sons are entitled to prefer an application u/s 166 for

compensation under the M V Act? Held ; Yes.

2017 ACJ 1784 (P&H)

Co claimant himself was negligent in causing the accident, as he was riding the bike – whether he is entitled for  compensation? Held ; No.

His share out of compensation is required to be deducted.

2017 ACJ 1868 (P&H)

Widow remarriage by her whether claim petition by her

maintainable? Held ; yes whether a widow is divested of her

right to get compensation for the death of her husband on her

remarrying during pendency of claim petition? Held ; no.

2008 ACJ 816 (MP), 2003 ACJ 542(MP), 2004 ACJ

1467(MP) 1992 ACJ 1048 (Raj), 2011 ACJ 1625 (Gau),

2013 ACJ 1679 (J & K). 2014 ACJ 950 (AP) 2018 ACJ

2732 (P&H)

AWife died in the vehicular accident – Husband remarriage

within 8 months thereof – Whether in such circumstances, husband can be treated as LR of deceased wife?HeldYes.

2017 ACJ 4 (All)

5 dependents death of unmarried woman living separately from

the claimant held claimant was not dependent and not entitled

for compensation but entitled to get Rs.50,000 u/s 140 of the Act

2012 ACJ 1552007

ACJ 1279 SC Manjuri Bera v/s O I Com. followed

 Meaning of legal representative is given u/s 2(11) of CPCwords

used u/s 166 of MV Act are legal representative and not

dependents therefore, includes earning wife and parents also further held that wife is entitled for compensation, till the date of

her remarriage.

2012 ACJ 1230 (Mad)considered ratios of SC, reported in

1989 (2) SCC (Supp) 275Banco v/s Nalini Bai Naique and

1987 ACJ 561 (SC)GSRTS v/s Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai –

2013 ACJ 99 (AP), Even where there is no dependent of LR

of deceased, non dependent heir of the deceased is entitled

to claim compensation u/s 166 of the M V Act 2016 ACJ

1416 (AP) (FB), 2018 ACJ 379 (Gau).

Earning wife – succumbed to the injuries – claim petition by

minor daughter and father – IC disputed its liability on the count that husband is earning and was not dependent of the deceased and minor was dependent on her father – Whether sustainable? Held ; No.

2017 ACJ 1441 (Ker), For fatal accident of wife, earning husband is treated as LR of the deceased wife – 2019 ACJ 855 (Del)

7 Legal representative live in relationship second wife whether

she is entitled for compensation, when first wife is living? Held ; Yes.

2012 ACJ 2586 (AP). 2011

(1) SCC 141 (live in relationship u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. Man is liable to pay maintenance). Also 2016 ACJ 79 (Kar), 2017 ACJ 931

(Kar), 2018 ACJ 110 (Mad).

8 Death of mother during pendency of claim petition father

of the deceased not considered as dependent whether

proper?Held ; No. claim petition ought to have been decided on the basis that mother of the deceased was alive on the date of accident, as right to sue accrued on date of accident.

2013 ACJ 19 (Del)

9 Whether on the basis of succession certificate, brother's son of

deceased gets right to file an application under the Act for

getting compensation. Held ; No.

2013 ACJ 1176 (J&K).

9A Whether on the natural death of the one of the joint claimants, succession certificate is required to produced so as to enable Tribunal to pass an order of disbursement of the awarded

amount, falling in the share of deceased claimant?Held ; No.

2014 ACJ 891 (MP).

9B To get awarded amount, L.Rs. are not required to get succession certificate SC judgment in the case of Rukhsana v/s Nazrunnisa,

2000 (9) SCC 240 followed.

2014 ACJ 2501 (Raj)

10 Compensation cannot be denied to the members of the family of the sole breadwinner.

1987 ACJ 561 (SC) GSRTC v/s Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai.

See also 2013 ACJ 2793 (Mad)UII

Com. v/s Poongavanam.

 Legal representative Adopted daughter whether said to LR?

HeldYes2013

ACJ 2708 (P&H)

12 Legal representative death of member of a registered charitable society who renounced the world whether, claim petition by society is maintainable ?Held ; Yes.

2014 ACJ 667 (SC) (FB) – Montford Brothers v/s UII Com.,

2018 ACJ 2092 (Mad)

NI Com v/s. Birender, AIR 2020 SC 434 – Married son is

considered for compensation also see 2022 ACJ 1406

(Cal) Bajaj Allianz v/s. Thakor Jayantibhai Piraji – Married sister

2022 ACJ 902 (Guj)

Mother in Law has been considered as been considered as

dependent – N. Jayasree v/s. Cholamandalam General

Insurance, Civil Appeal No.6451 of 2021.

13 Remarriage of Widow Whether disentitled her to get

compensation? Held;No.

2014 ACJ 950 (AP).

14 Legal representative and legal heirs u/s 166 words Legal

representative are use whereas, u/s 163A words Legal heirs are

used. Therefore, Legal representative of deceased is not entitled

to claim compensation u/s163A of the Act.

2014 ACJ 1492 (Ker)Kadeeja v/s Managing Director, KSRTC

dated 18.10.2013.

15 Claim petition filed by the children of deceased from the first

marriage on the ground that claim petition filed by the second

wife is allowedwhether proper?Held;Yes.

As amount of compassion received by the L.Rs. of deceased deemed to be hold by him on behalf of all L.R.children

of deceased from the first marriage are directed to file a suit for recovery.

2014 ACJ 2504(All)

16 Legal representative live in relationship second wife whether

she is entitled for compensation, when first wife is living? Held ; Yes.

2012 ACJ 2586 (AP). 2011

(1) SCC 141 (live in relationship u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. Man is liable to pay maintenance).

2007 (7) SCJ 467Hafizun Begum v/s Md. Ikram Heque.

17 Married sons and daughters can be considered as dependents?

And are entitled for compensation? Held ; Yes.

2015 ACJ 1180 (P&H). 1987

ACJ 561 (SC) – GSRTC v/s Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai followed.

NI Com v/s. Birender, AIR 2020 SC 434, Bajaj Allianz

General Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Bipasa Roy, 2022 ACJ 1406

(Cal)

17AMother in law is considered as LR of the deceased – N.

Jayasree v/s. Cholamandalam MS Genral Ins. Com. 2021 ACJ

2685 (SC)

18 Agent of victim – Whether owner can prefer claim petition

without filing authority letter u/s 166 (1) (d) of the M V Act on

behalf of the victim/deceased? Held – No.

2015 ACJ 1688 (Gau)

19 Mother of the deceased died after three year of filing of the claim petition – her LR moved an application to be joined as LR of

mother of the deceased whether such application can be allowed? HeldYes.

2016 ACJ 68 (Ker)

20Widow mother of the deceased – mother working as Assistant

Professor whether claim for compensation is  maintainable? Held ; Yes.

2016 ACJ 2187 (Mad)

21Abrogation of Right – death of the mother (Claimant) of the

deceased during pendency of the claim petition – she did not

have any dependent Whether in such situation her right to claim

compensation abrogated? Held ; No.

in such situation Tribunal is not required to calculate compensation on the basis of the age of the mother.

2017 ACJ 192 (Ker)

22Legal Representative married daughter and sister filed four

claim petitions as LR of her father, mother, brother and sister in

law – whether such claim petitions are maintainable? Held ;yes

but she is entitled to get amount u/s 140 and funeral expenses

only.

2017 ACJ 234 (Guj), married Sister 2018

ACJ 1352 (Mad),

2018 ACJ 1581 (Cal) but in 2018 ACJ 1686 (UK) has taken

contrary view.

23Legal representative – Manager of orphan paternal

aunt whether can be treated as LR of such orphan – No. But

they are entitled for loss estate and funeral expenses only.

2018 ACJ 91 (Kar)

24Deceased aged about 78 years – claim petition by 2 major sons

and two grandchildren – whether maintainable? Held ; yes. But

instead of 1/3 deduction, 50% deduction ordered.

2018 ACJ 1004 (SC) NIA Com. V/s. Vinish Jain

25LR – elder brother can prefer a claim petition – held yes.

2018 ACJ 1057 (Mad)

26Accident occurred because of the negligence of the rider of the

two wheeler (Bike motorcycle)

and other vehicle – wife who was riding on the bike as pillion sustained fatal injuries – husband of the decease (rider of the bike) is entitled to claim compensation? Held; No. It has been held that after determining the quantum of compensation, the extent of the share of the husband/rider of the bike should be determined and the compensation awarded to the other heirs should be reduced to that extent FA No.1450 of 2016, dated 1.9.2016 (Jst. M R Shah and Jst A S Supehia).

Also refer CoClaimant himself was negligent in causing the

accident, as he was riding the bike – whether he is entitled for

compensation? Held;No.

His share out of compensation is required to be deducted. 2017

ACJ 1868 (P&H)

But in the case of N.I. A. Com. V/s. Arunachalam, 2016 SCC

Online Mad 16856 = 2017 ACJ 530, it has been held that only

children would be entitled for the total compensation and not

the husband who is also a tortfeasor.