CRP 309/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. No ne appeared for respondents despite service of notice. 2. Challenge in the instant revision petition is made against the order dat ed 17.03.2009 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short MACT),Tinsukia in MAC Case No. 62 of 2007 and the order passed on 22.05.20 09 refusing to review the earlier order whereby it has been held that the p ro forma respondent No. 4 (Respondent No.1 herein) is entitled to get Rs.1,12,5 00/-, the claimant/respondent No.2 will get the rest of the amount and the marri ed daughters of the deceased late Rameswar Prasad Gupta are not entitled to an y compensation they being married daughters of the deceased, thereby rejecting t he petition No.248/08 filed by the daughters of late Rameswar Prasad Gupta. 3. The brief facts of the case is narrated in a nutshell as follows: Late Rameswar Prasad Gupta died on 02.06.2006 due to injuries sustained in a Mot or Accident which occurred on 25.04.2006 at Tinsukia leaving behind the followin g heirs: 1) Shri Uma Shankar Gupta, 2) Shri Gauri Shankar Gupta, 3) Smti Lajwanti Jaiswal, 4) Smti Basanti Jaiswal, and 5) Smti Devanti Jaiswal. 4. On the death of Rameswar Prasad Gupta, it was decided in a family meetin g that the claim petition would be filed by Shri Uma Shankar Gupta and on gettin g the compensation award it should be divided in 5 equal installments amongst th e brothers and the sisters deducting the medical expenses incurred by Uma Shanka r. 5. Accordingly a claim petition was filed before the MACT on 04.10.2007 by Shri Uma Shankar Gupta claming compensation of Rs.3,90,000/- making the insuranc e company, the owner of the vehicle, the driver as opposite parties and Shri Gau ri Shankar Gupta as pro forma opposite party. But the sisters were not made parties in the claim petition which was registered as MAC No. 62 of 2007. 6. In the claim petition wherein the pro forma respondent No. 4 though was made a party filed his written statement claiming 50% total compensation. The cl aim petition being No.62/07 was however, placed before the Lok Adalat on 09.02.2 008 wherein a joint compromise petition was filed by the claimant and the insura nce company and as per the agreement, the insurance company was directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand) only to the claim ant within two months, failing which the claimant will be entitled to realise the compensation with interest @ 8 % p.a. from 09.02.2008. 7. However, the pro forma opposite party No. 4 in the claim petition in con nection with the MAC Case No. 62/07 claimed 50% of the total amount awarded as c ompensation alleging that no notice was served on him when the case was settled by Lok Adalat and prayed for necessary order reviewing the order dated 09.02.200 8 being petition No. 247/08. 8. On receipt of the petition filed by the pro forma respondent No. 4 the claimant put an objection along with other sisters being petition No. 248/08 c ontending inter alia that the amount awarded be divided into five parts equally after deducting the medical expenses and accordingly the learned Tribunal sough for legal heir certificate which was produced before the learned Tribunal. Ther eafter the pro forma opposite party No. 4 filed another petition alleging fraud by the claimant and obtained the order on 09.02.2008 without serving notice on h im being petition No.54/09 contending that the married daughters are not entitle d to get compensation. 9. Thereafter, the learned Member, MACT after hearing the parties vide orde r dated 17.03.2009 allowed the petition No.54/09 filed by the pro forma opposite party No. 4 in the claim petition thereby awarded 50% of the compensation to hi m rejecting the petition No.248/08 dated 28.03.2008 holding that the married dau ghters are not entitled to get the compensation. 10. Being aggrieved with the order dated 17.03.2009, the petitioner herein f iled a review petition being petition No.308/09 under Order XLVII Rule 1 read wi th Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code for short) on 20.03.2009 con tending inter alia that none of the legal heirs of late Rameswar Prasad Gupta are dependant on the earning of the deceased and the petitioners are the leg al representative as defined under Section 2 clause (ii) of the Code and praye d for review of the order dated 17.02.2009. But the learned Tribunal after hea ring the parties vide order dated 22.05.2009 rejected the review petition holdin g that the same is not maintainable and hence the instant petition under Artic le 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated 17.03.2009 an d 22.05.2009. 11. Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was substituted by Act 39 of 2005, whereby devolution of interest in coparcenery property on and from the co mmencement of Act 2005 in a Joint Hindu Family governed by Mitakshara law, the d aughter of a coparcener shall- a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son; b) have the same rights in the coparcenery property as she would have had if s he had been a son; c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenery propert y as that of a son; and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a ref erence to a daughter of a coparcener. 12. Admittedly the petitioners herein alongwith the claimant and the pro for ma opposite party No. 4 are governed by Mitakshara law and late Rameswar Prasad Gupta was a Karta as per Hindu Mitakshara law and therefore remained as joint Hi ndu family till separates themselves by partition of the joint Hindu family pro perty. Nowhere in the pleadings it has been averred that they were not in the joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law under the Hindu Succession Act a nd therefore, exclusion of married daughters from getting the share of compens ation awarded by MACT is wholly untenable. 13. Apart from the above law, a Division Bench of this court has held in Rub en Borah -vs- Anju Borah & Ors. reported in 2005 (4) GLT 127 while dealing with Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act that Hindu daughters can be treated as the legal representatives as provided under Section 2(ii) of the Code and applicab le to compensation proceeding under the Act. The court has held that the daught ers whether married or unmarried are Class I heirs under Section 8(a) read w ith Schedule of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 are entitled to get the compensation awarded by MACT. 14. A conjoint reading of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 coupled with the decision rendered by the court in Ruben Borah (Supra), thi s court has no hesitation to hold that married daughters of Hindu under the Hi ndu Succession Act are entitled to get the compensation awarded by MACT, Tins ukia in MAC Case No. 62 of 2007. 15. In the result the petition is allowed. The orders dated 17.03.2009 and 2 2.05.2009 passed in MAC Case No. 62/2007 by the learned MACT, Tinsukia are set a side and quashed. Consequently it is directed that after deducting the medical expenses incurred by Uma Shankar, the rest of the compensation amount awarded, would be equally distributed amongst the legal heirs of late Rameswar Prasad G upta, viz.; 1) Shri Uma Shankar Gupta, 2) Shri Gauri Shankar Gupta, 3) Smti Basanti Jaiswal, 4) Smti Lajwanti Jaiswal, and 5) Smti Devanti Jaiswal. 16. The parties are left to bear their own costs.