;_¥ ¥ Divisln‘n Bench‘ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICA"!"URE AT BILAsPUR V MISCELLANEous APPEAL No. _‘ [I OF 209;?i APPELLANTS: j; Smf. Jny Minocha. wife of (Claimants) </ Shri M-unish Minocha, aged abouf ZIB years. Kumar‘i Reshifu (minor), O6 years. ; ’ Harsh Minocha, minar),, aged al: ouf 4 years. No.2 & 3 are minors thruugh Their' next friend SmT. Joy Minocha, wife of Shri Manish Minocha Modern Chowk‘, AII residents of Complex, Motibagh Raipur. VS 1. Vijay Kumar, son of $hri ? Ramabhilins ./ ‘4 t V gRESPON‘DENTs ‘ (Non-Applicants) “\‘é.’ 1 Dubey, aged about 35 years, Driver“ resident of Pahadi .Chowk‘, Gudhiyari, Raipur. (2/ Raj Bahc:,dur Mishra, wife of Sa‘ryanar’ ayan Mishra , aged about 50 years, resident of near Waimire Railway '\Crossing Fafadih, Raipur. 3yfThe New India Insurance: Company Pvt. Ltd.‘ through ‘ " No.1- Manager. Raipur. 1 i i Branch Divisional k ' i ( h g/ 4. V. Krishxm Rao, son of $l1ri \./ MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 THE MOTOR VEHICLE AL‘IT, 1988 OF v~\ /' T, 2S: ZSNO 6b 313‘ ; aged «nbouf 26 year's" residenf of Police 5fdfion $a1'u, D‘fsfrigf Vijay Nagr‘l, Afldhr'a Pradesh, presenTIy Through Mohd. Nagir' Qur‘eshi, son of Mohd. écm'i ' ! i‘t‘‘ Qureshi, Abdulla Goodi; Transport Moudhapur‘a,‘ l . Raipur. i i ‘ r 5. Mohd. Nnsir Qureshi, sonof ‘ ‘ f Mohd. Gcmi Qureshi, Abdullcl Goods Transport, ; Moud'hapuxr'a, Raipur. _ \ v 6. Nationa! Insurance Company Pvt. L"‘d; The. , through Divisional. Office, 6.E.. Road, Raipur‘. 7. B.C.H.R<:lju, son of $hri B.A.Raju, Kripa Transpor’r, Patel Cwmplex, Ring Road” Raipur‘. C\ef\mcc\ nmaqa¥vg ILASPUR Hon’ble I. M. QUDDUSI & Hon’ble G. MIAJUDDI , JJ DB: ‘ St. Joy Minocha 8n others Vs. Vijay Kumar and othexs V 5 M.A g No. 11751200 Smt. Joy Minocha 86 othcxs Vs. Vijay Kumar and others APELLANTS: ——‘ —/ RESPONDENTS: i V‘ . o 1 RhsPONDENTs: I 1 173 OF I THE MOTOR ppearce: Mr. M.L. - Saka, counsel for the j Mr. B. P. Shanna and appellants. MI. Shn'kumar Agxawal, Sr. : r n Mr. a Awasthi, Rj O 21 § Per LM. 9111313051, J, 111 Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G) separate aWards on 28.06.200 fox espondent o.3. counsel for respondent no.6. vocate, with Shli Anand Gupta, € y i § g ‘ ; \ i . 1 i ORAL RDER (.07.2011) has 5 in Claim Case The X Addl. Motor Accide 1. passed two respectively whereby the claim 1105341200513“; 35/2005 appellants haye been dismisse the instant appeals have been alga. M:A.No.1174/2005 mates d,’ against which petitions of the. No.34/2oo4 and M.A.. No.1175/2005 relates to to Claim Case Claim Case No.35] 2005. Since bot these appeals arise out the ax in HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, B NH M. Ag No. 117412005 m P MISC. APPEALS UNDER V SECTION VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Aan t Ad h ? same accident met with Tata Sumo bearing Regn.No.M.P.23— LA/ 1827, they am being disposed ofby this common order. ' . Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that appellant no.1 Smt. Joy Minocha was daughter of deceased persons Naresh Arora and Smt. Bhafu' Arora. Appellants no.2 85 3 ale minor children of appellant no. 1. On 6.04.2001 the deceased persons along—With others had gone to Bastar by Tata sumo bearing V Regn.No.M.P.23—L.A/ 1827. On 07.04.2001 when they were coming back to Raipur, the said vehicle which was being driven by respondent no.1 Vijay Kumar Yadav in a rash and negligent manner strnck against a stationary Truck which was standing on the left side of the road, as a result of which, Naresh Amra and Bharti Arora both died. Appellant no. 1 along—with her'minor children being legal heirs had nled two separate claim petitions n/ ss 140 85 166 of the . Motor Vehicles Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’) for the award of compensations due to death of her father and motherv respectively. The claim petitions have been “dismissed by the Claims Tribunal on the ground that the Appellant no.1 was married daughter of the deceased persons, therefore, the claimants are not enu'tled to receive any compensation due to ‘ death of mother and father of Appellant no. 1. ‘In view of the ‘abOVELWhe only question before us is whether any compensation is payable where the claim is hled by legal , representatives of the deceased who were not dependent on them ? 3$ The expression “L6gal Reprcsantah've" has not been demled in the Motor Vehicles Act or the Rules made themuud'er. It has been dehned in sub-section (11) of section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which reads as under: “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 a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued; Almost in‘ similar terms is the definition of “legal representative” under section 2(1)(g) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Hon’ble the Apex Court in Custodian of Branches of BANCO Nwonal Ultramarine Vs. Nalini Bai Naique, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 275 observed that the dennition contained in section 2(11) CPC is inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is not conhned to legal heirs only. Instead it‘ stipulates that a person who may or may not be legal heir competent to inherit the property of the deceased can represent the estate of the deceased person. It includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate even without title either as executors or administrators in‘ppssession of the estate of the deceased, All such persons would be covered by the expression “legal representative”. Earlier in Gujarat ’Sfate Road Transport Corporauon, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another (1987) 3 SCC 234 Hon’ble the Apex Court also observed that “a legal representative is one who sulTers on bl ‘d .Wynwhwr, r .,. V ”n1 t.a (M account of death of a person due to a motor Vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child.” 7. In the above back ground, Hon’ble the Apex Court in Smt. Manjuri Bera -Vs- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another (2007) 10’1SCC 643 held (per Hon’ble Dr. Arijit Pasayat, writing for the Bench) that Where a_ legal' representative who‘is not dependant nles an application for compensation, the quantum cannot be less than the liability referable to Section 140 of the Act. Therefore, even if there is i no loss of dependency the claimant if he or she is a legal representative will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall be not less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act. Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia,) concurring with the opinion of Dr. Arijit Pasayat has laid down that that “No fault liability envisaged in Section 140 of the said Act; is distinguishable horn the rule of “Strict Liability”. In the former, the compensation amount is fixed. It is Rs.50,000/ - in cases of ‘ death [Section 140(2)]. It is a stamtoxy‘nabinty. 1t is an amount which can be deducted hom the nnal amount awarded Since, the amount is a fixed amount] crystallized amount, the same has to be considered as part of by the Tribunal. the estate of the deceased. In that case, the deceased was an t earning member. ".I‘he statutory compensation could consn'tute part of his estate. Hisi‘legal representative, namely his daughter has inherited his estate. She was entitled to inherit his estate. In the circumstances, she was entitled to receive compensation under “No fault Liability” in terms of section 140 ‘75‘ the said Act. That section iS a Code by itself Within the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988”. In Manjuri Berd’s case (supra) it has been observed that the - liability under section 140 of the Act does not cease because there is absence of dependency. The right to flle claim application has to be considered in the background of light to entitlement, In this,context, we are required to look into th i w‘ provisions of section 140 which reads as under ‘ “140. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault-(1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted nom an accident an'sing out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in mspect of such death or disablementv in accordance with the provisions of this section. ‘ (2) The amount-of compensation which shall be payable under sub-secn‘on (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a hxed sum of fifty thousand rupees and the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a flxed sum of twenty f1ve thousand rupees. (3) In any claim for compensation under sub— section (1), the claimant shall not be. required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (4) A claim for compensation under sub-section (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act', neglect ondefault of the person in respect ofwhose death or permanént disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share. of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent! disablement. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub— section (2) regarding death or bodily injury to any person, for which the owner of the vehicle is liable top give compensation for relief, he is also liable to pay of e Secu‘on 166 of th€ Motor Vehicles Act comsponds to Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (old Act). It pmvides that n application for compensation may be made by all or any of ‘ ‘ the legal representatives of the deceased in case where death has resulted mm the accident. Section 166 is relevant here and quotéd below: compensation nnder any other law for the time being in force: Provided that the amount of such compensation to be given under any other law shall be reduced nom the amount ‘of compensation payable under this section o under section 163-A.” t “166. “Application for compensation :~ (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specihed in sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made‘ (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all ‘or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. (b) Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benent of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so \, joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. (2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at th'e\option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred orito the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides and shall be in such form and contain such particulargas may be prescribed: a r i ?/ W . Provided that Where ‘no daim for compensau'on under ‘ Section 140 is mads in such application, tho application shall contain a scparate statement to that eHect immediately before the signature of the applicaqt. XXXXXXXX (4) The Claims Tn'bunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of Section 158 as an appliciation for compensation under this Act.” 19. ‘ In View of what has been ‘ discussed above, we hold that though V ‘there is no loss of dependency, yet the claimants being legal representatives are entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased persons, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present cases, the appellants are entitled to receive compensation under no fault liability in terms of section 140(2) of the Act. Hence the claim petitions Were maintainable as nled by the legal representatives of the deceased. .11. Since at the time of passing of the interim award u] s 140, the Tribunal has already directed vide order dated 12.03.2003 to both the Insurance Companies and owners to pay Rs.25000/- each and the claimants have already received the amount of i compensau'on of Rs.50,000/- in both “the claim cases. Therefore, it shall for all purposes, the award of Rs.50,000/ under secu'on 140 is to be borne by both the Insurance Companies equally. Earlier, in M.A(C).No.1192/2005, the amount has been enhanced, liability fastened on New India ‘Assurance Company exonerating the Nan'onal Insurance Company. The amount hasgalready been paid. Therefore, the same need not be refunded. \ x 12. At this stage, Mr. Raj Awasthy, learned counsel for respondent no.6/Na1ional Insurance Company Ltd., submits that for U payment of compensation, it was not the liability of his Insulance Company. But no appeal has been tiled by the National Insurance Company. We are deciding these appeals med by the claim ants and therefore no order can be passed on the objection raised by the counsel for respondent no.6. by ‘b 13. ‘ V1.11 the result, the appeals are allowed to the above extent. The impugned awards dated 28.062005 am set aside. No order as . to costs. . sci/— G. Minhaiuddi“ Judge , i y” l Sd/- {i I l I 1 I / ‘ ' l.M.Quddusi ‘ r’i.‘ ‘ Judge Rao 1