Legal Representative and 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.
1 Legal representative brother & married daughter evidence 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.
2 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)
3 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)
4 Widow remarriage by her whether claim petition by her maintainable? held yeswhether 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)
4A Wife died in the vehicular accident – Husband remarriage within 8 months thereof – Whether in such circumstances, husband can be treated as LR of deceased wife? Held Yes.
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 155 2007 ACJ 1279 SC Manjuri Bera v/s O I
Com. followed
6 Meaning of legal representative is given u/s 2(11) of CPC words 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) 275 Banco 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).
6A 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.
11 Legal representative Adopted daughter whether said to LR?
Held Yes
2013 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)
MotherinLaw 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 allowed whether 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 467 Hafizun 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)
17A Mother is 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? Held Yes.
2016 ACJ 68 (Ker)
20 Widow mother of the deceased – mother working as Assistant Professor whether claim for compensation is maintainable? Held Yes. 2016 ACJ 2187 (Mad)
21 Abrogation 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)
22 Legal 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.
23 Legal 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)
24 Deceased 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
25 LR – elder brother can prefer a claim petition – held yes.
2018 ACJ 1057 (Mad)
26 Accident 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.
Posts
0 Comments