In the case
of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd v Vandana Sharma And Ors, Jts.
H.S. Madaan held that “It has to be taken into view that Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act is a piece of welfare legislation. It was enacted by the
Parliament to provide relief to the persons, who suffered injuries in the motor
vehicular accident as well as to the legal representatives of the victims, who
unfortunately lost their lives in such mishaps. Strict rules of evidence and
procedure are not applicable there”. [1]
CAN
FATHER CLAIM COMPENSATION FOR SON AGAINST MOTHER?
In the case of V. Subbarayudu vs G.M., Andhra Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation & Ors.[2], son and daughter
die in an accident and father files for compensation and later subsequently
mother(divorced) too got impleaded and claim for compensation. The issue
before the Andhra Pradesh High Court was that whether the father is entitled to
claim compensation u/s 110 of Motor Vehicle Act when their unmarried son dies.
The contention of mother’s side: The father is admittedly a parent. But as per personal law of Hindus,
the father is only a Class II heir while the mother is Class I heir to the
deceased unmarried son. Class I heir excludes Class II heir. It means that if
there is any Class I heir, Class II heir has no right to inherit. If the
expression 'legal representative' in Section 110-A has to be limited only to the
heirs of the deceased, the father of the deceased unmarried son cannot claim as
an heir when his wife, i.e., the mother of the deceased unmarried son is alive.
The High Court took the reference of the case, Gujarat State Road Transport
Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai[3], where the Supreme
Court held that the expression 'legal representative' in Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (1939) should be given a
wider meaning and it should not be confined to the spouse, parents and children
of the deceased.
It is common knowledge that generally the father
brings up his son and spends for his education, etc. and he naturally expects
his son to maintain him if in his later years he cannot maintain himself. It is
evidently for that reason that the father also is referred to as one of the
persons for whose benefit the compensation amount can be claimed under
the Fatal Accidents Act. For that reason, the
Supreme Court categorically observed that the expression 'legal representative'
in Section 110-A of the said Act
should be given a wider meaning and it should not be confined to the spouse,
parent and children of the deceased. Thus, there can be an addition to the
category referred to but there should not be the exclusion of any of the
persons referred to therein. The expression 'legal representative' was not
defined in the Motor Vehicles Act. It means that even
those who were not referred to in Section
1-A of the Fatal
Accidents Act may be legal representatives.
One of the objects of Section 110-A is to provide succour to those
who depend upon the earnings of the bread-winner if he dies in a motor
accident. The court can take cognizance of the fact that the person is bound to
maintain his parents, spouse and children not only as a moral duty but also as
statutory responsibility. When a person is living with the parents or even away
from the parents, it is his duty to maintain his parents. There would be loss
of dependency for the parents if their son unfortunately dies.
The Andhra
Pradesh High Court held that:- “It is proper to hold that the expression
'legal representative' in Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act includes the persons
referred to in Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act (1855) and also the
other heirs as per personal law. Thus, amongst the Hindus, even the father can
claim along with the mother the compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act in case of the death
of an unmarried son or married son, who dies without leaving any Class I heir other
than the mother.”
Section 1-A in The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855: Suit for compensation to the family of a person
for loss occasioned to it by his death by actionable wrong.-Whenever the death
of a person shall be caused by the wrongful act, neglect or default, and the
act, neglect or default is such as would (if death had not ensued) have
entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages in respect
thereof, the party who would have been liable if death had not ensued, shall be
liable to an action or suit for damages, notwithstanding the death of the
person injured and although the death shall have been caused under such
circumstances as the amount in law to a felony or other crime. 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; and in every such action, the court may 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, and the amount so recovered, after deducting all costs and expenses,
including the costs not recovered from the defendant, shall be divided amongst
the before-mentioned parties, or any of them, in such shares as the court by
its judgment or decree shall direct.
Section 110-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act (1939): An
application for compensation arising out of an accident.
In the case of Taff Vale Rail Co. v. Jenkins, 1913 AC 1, it was
observed:- "It is not a condition precedent to the maintenance of an
action under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 that the deceased
should have been actually earning money or money's worth or contributing to the
support of the plaintiff at or before the date of the death, provided that the
plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit from the
continuance of the life." Same was upheld in the case of Hira Lal
v. State of Punjab.[4]
OTHERS
The court has even considered other relatives (who does not fall under
class I legal heirs under Hindu Law) within the purview of ‘legal
representative’ for the sake of compensation.
Division Bench of Gujarat High Court held that all the heirs and legal
representatives of the deceased could maintain the claim petition under Section
110-A of the Motor Vehicle Act (1939) and had awarded compensation in favour of
the nephew of the deceased.[5]
In the case of a car accident, it was contended that the claimants other
than the father of the deceased, have no right to claim any compensation as
they are merely the brothers and sisters. It was admitted that the father of
the deceased can claim compensation. It was further contended that the brothers
and the sisters have no locus standi to file the applications or to receive
compensation Motor Vehicles Act. The court held that if the Legislature has not
given the definition of the word "legal representative" in the Motor Vehicles Act then it has to be
presumed that the definition of the word "legal representative" as
given in the Civil Procedure Code will be taken to be the meaning of the
"legal representative" as incorporated in the Motor Vehicles Act. In Section 2 (11) of the Civil Procedure Code the word
"legal representative" means a person who in law represents the
estate of the deceased person and includes any person who intermeddles with the
estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in the representative
character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so
suing or sued. The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that brother and
sister of the deceased can be held to be within the purview of legal
representatives as given in Section 2 (11), Civil Procedure Code and such
brothers and sisters will definitely be entitled to file an application for
claiming compensation and if any compensation is found to be payable then such
persons being the legal representatives will be entitled to get the
compensation.[6]
INSURANCE COMPANY’S POSITION IN
CASE OF NEGLIGENCE
Two persons along with some other passengers were travelling in Tata Sumo died on spot due to a head-on-collusion between the Tata Sumo and a Truck. Families of the deceased person's preferred claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal against the owner of the Tata Sumo. The victim was travelling in the offending vehicle as “gratuitous passenger”. The Supreme Court was of the view that the direction to United India Insurance Company being the insurer of the offending vehicle which was found involved in causing an accident due to negligence of its driver needs to be issued directing them to first pay the awarded sum to the appellants and then to recover the paid awarded sum from the owner of the offending vehicle.
[1] MANU/SCOR/18263/2019
[2] II (1992) ACC 718, 1994 ACJ 923
[3] 1987 ACJ 561(SC)
[4] AIR 1961 Punj 236
[5] Megjibhai Khimji Vira v.
Chaturbhai Taljabhai, 1977
[6] State of Himachal Pradesh v. Dole
Ram, 1981
 Claim Compensation Under Motor Vehicle Act){kind=link}
0 Comments