IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. fC1 No. l)?^t / 2011. ••n^-' ^)' n ^ s "n /' pres| [Applicant No.2. lAO.OJ-":-rrs^ ^•"'"'S^J^^'^'"^ ^S^u!f3" ._,--•' ^^1">"'—'.:.....-^°" "-\ APPELLANTS: CLAIMANT Applicant No.l. ^w^-r RESPONDENTS: NON- APPLICANT No.l NON- APPLICANT No.2 NON- APPLICANT No.3 01. 02. 03. 01. 02. 03. Mangal Das (SINCE DECEASED) S/o Thanuhar Das Panika, R/o Garh, Police St".: Katghora, Tah: Katghora, Dist: Korba, Chhattisgarh. Nohar Das S/o Mangal Das, aged about 39years, R/o Garh, Police St".: Katghora, Tah: Katghora, Dist: Korba, Chhattisgarh. Sulochana Das D/o Mangal Das, aged about 37 years, R/o Garh, PoUce Stn.: Katghora, Tah: Katghora, Dist: Korba, Chhattisgarh. Akhand Singh S/o Jagmohan Singh, aged about 37 years, R/o Garh, Post: Machadoli, Police St".: Katghora, Tahsil: Katghora, District: Korba, Chhattisgarh. Abdul Gani S/o Late Abdul Gaffar, Qr. No.B 861, Kaveri Vihar, Block No.2, NTPC Colony Korba, Tahsil: Katghora, Dist: Korba, Chhattisgarh. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bilaspur C/o its Branch Manager, Transport Nagar, Tahsil 85 District: Korba, Chhattisgarh. APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988. A-r^^rtJ \/Z»lU-C-£i PC.. t2..?0.<9CSG| ^-'-^ CGURT OF AT M.A._[CU'iO.,ia4^0_F,2Qll Maiigal Das (Siiice decea^ed) aiid others. Aldiaiid Smgli aiid otl-iers. f-' 173 OF MOTOH ACT,_1988 Binsloii BeiacIisHoB'bie SIiri LM. Qisddiisi & Hon'ble Sh?i G. Msasfeatuddla, JJ. Shri M.K. Baeg^ counsel for tiie appellarits. None for the respoiidents NQ. 1 & 2. Slii-i R.N. Pusty, couiisel for tlie respondent No.3. GRAL_ORDEH (Passed oa 18th day ofOctober, 2011J Per I.I€.Ouddusi, J. Thls appeal has beeu filed agamst fhe impugned onler dated 28-10-2010 passed 'by tlie Motor Accldent Claiiiis Tribunal, Korba (for short <the Clalms Tribunal') m Clami Case No. 117/2009 by the appellaiits, dlsmissing the applicatiou for substitution of the appellaiits/applicmits naiiiely Nohai- Das aad Sulochaaa Devi, sou and daughter of the claimaat-Maagal Das as well as tl-ie deceased Phool 3al, rnotlier of flie appellaats/applicaats, wfao dled iu the accideut. 2. Brief facts of the case as per version of tiie appellaiits/clahuaiits ai'-e that on 24-06-2009 at about.3.25 p.m., while Phool Bal after seeiiig lier husbaiid otT in tlie btis beai-iiig. registi'atlon No. C.Q. 10-C/0463 at Village-Gaclh, was allgliting ft-om flie bus, at fl-iat tli-ne, tlie drlver of flie said bus, all of a sudden, iu a rash .and negiigent iiiariner, mcwed 'the bus, as a i^sult of wtilch Phool Bal fell down irom tlie bus aud was crushecl by tlie reai' wheel of tlie bus. She was taken to District Kospltal, Korba fbr treatmeut where fhe doctor .^^^^^ ^ S) declai-ed her as brought dead. Report of tlie iiicldent was glven tlii'ough DIsti-ict Hospital, Korba, to tlie Chowki at Raiupur aud thereafter^ ou the basis of tlie hospital nienio^ an ofience was registered. 3. The father of tliese two appellaiits nainely Maiigal Das, filed a clami petltlon uiider Section 166 of fl-ie Motor Vehicles Act (for- shor-t the Acf) befor-e tiie CIaims Tribuiial, for clalmiiig compensatlon due to tiie death of liis wife iii tlie accident, but the applicauts/appellants who were son aiid daughter of tlie deceased Phool Bai were not mipleacled as otlier claiiiiaiits. After the deatl-i of flie clalniaiit-Maiigal Das, tliey moved aii appllcation sayiiig that they ai-e son aiid daugliter of fiie deceased-Maiigal Das, the clahriaiit. The said applicatlon was rejected on tlie grouiid tiiat they were not dependents of tlie clainiaiit aiid heuce caiinot be iuipleaded as party in the claiiii ijetition aiid also the deceased-claiiiiai'it Maiigal Das had not dlsclosed fhe fact ia lils claliiii petltion tliat tlxe clalmaiits/appllcaiits No. 1 aiid 2 ai'-e also legal representatlves of the deceased Phool Bai. 4. In our opiiiion, the applicaiits/appellaiits .L€. son aiicl daughter of the deceased Phool Bal, who dled in tlie acciclent should have been impleaded as clajinaiits at tlie very inception, iu vlew of provlso to Section 166 (1) of fue Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whlch is reproduced as mider: "166, Applicatioii for coiispeasatioii.- (1) Aii application for compensation arlsing out of aii accident of ti.ie nature specified in sub-sectlon (1) of Section 165 m.ay be niade- (a) by tlie person wlio has sustained tlie mjmy; or (bj by ti.ie owner offlie property;,or (c) where death has resulted from the accident^ by all or aiiy of tlie legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by aiiy agent duly autliorised by tl-ie person injured or all or any of the legal ^ ^ -<^,^ '^ ;! ^. ^:i.^-'ly^.. M 1 '%^..T ''^^d^ A-V representatives of the deceased, as flie ca-se may be: Provided tiiat where all tlie legal representatives of the deceased have not jotned in any such applicatlon fbr conipeusatiou, the application shali be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of tlie deceased aiid the legal representatives who have not so jomed, sliall be impleaded as r-espondents to flie application." 5. "Legal Representative" has been defined in Sectloxi 2(11) ofthe Code of ClvU Procedure, 1908, which is as uiider: ^legal represeutative?s meaiis a person who m law represents the estate of a deceased person, aiid uicludes aiiy person who intermeddles "witli tlie estate of the deceased aiid where a party sues or is used in a representatlve chai'acter the person on whom the estate devolv-es ou tlie death of tlie paity. so suing or sued,w 6. Therefore, it caiiiiot be said that tlie apijlicaiits/ appellaiits - Nohai- Das aiid Sulochaiia Devi were not tiie legal representattves of their deceased motter - Fhool Bal, who dled iu tlie accldent as well as the deceased father, "who was the clalmaiit also. 7. Iu view of the facts and circumstances of the caae, we are of tlie opiriion that ti-ie appeUaiits/appllcaiits, as leg&l representatives of Uie deceased; were entitled to be impleaded as clamiaiits/respondeiits in the claim petition aiid after the death of the claimaiit (fatlier of tlie appellaiits), tlie claliii petitiou could uot have beeu dismissed and fhe Clalms Trlbunal should have decided tlie claim. petition on iiierlts. Therefore, we allow tiiis appeal iii pail, set aside flie mipugned or-der- aiid r-emit back the matfcer- to tiie ^lalins Tribunal to declde fhe clalm petitiou ou iiierits, substltutlug the appellants 'os claiiiiaiits m tlie claun petition. ^ -<".^-... v £A 'S^,'-. 1 ;? ^ "^.^s^-^ 8. Needless to mentiou tiiat fhe parties be allc^wed to amend the pleadiiigs, adduce fur-tiier- evldence, fUe documents or get the docmiients verified etc. aiid fl-iereafter, the claliQ petitiou shall be decided on uierits. 9. The partles shall appear befbre fhe Clainis TTibiinal ou 30-11-2011. 10. The records of the Claims Tribunal shall be sent back without fuither delay. 11. Nooul bsts. Sd/- w.l-M:Quddu 3udS(L si Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Kvr