1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3784 OF 2009 Smt. Shobhabai wd/o Purshottam Nikam, R/o-Karanji, Tq-Bodwad, Dist-Jalgaon, At Present R/o-Mondhala, Tq-Bhusawal, Dist-Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS Bapurao s/o Dayaram Nikam, R/o-Karanji, Tq-Bodwad, Dist-Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT. ... Mr.A.M. Gholap Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.V.Y. Patil Advocate for Respondent sole. ... CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 7TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. PER COURT : 1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing. Rule. 2 Rule made returnable forthwith and matter is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. In the present Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner - original claimant is challenging the order dated 25th May, 2009 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon below Exhibit 42 filed by Respondent holding that Respondent is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. A few facts of the matter are as under: . The Petitioner is daughter in law of Respondent. On 25th May, 2006 Petitioner's husband - Purushottam Baburao Nikam along with one Umesh Dagadu Nikam were going on motor cycle from Varangaon to Bodwad at the left side of the road in moderate speed. At that time the accident took place in which husband of the Petitioner died on the spot. Thereafter the Petitioner filed Claim Petition No.373 of 2006 for compensation. Thereafter the matter was placed before Lok Nyayalaya. In Lok Nyayalaya the matter 3 settled for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. But thereafter the Respondent- father in law of the Petitioner, filed application below Exhibit 42 claiming his share in the said compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent being Class-II heir, is not entitled to any compensation. IN support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the following Authorities: (i) Smt. Shalini wd/o Ghanshyam Nimje and others vs. Banwarilal Mukund Chawla and others, reported in 2007 (5) ALL. M.R. Page 833, (ii) Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 A.C.J. 1298, (iii) Halkibai and another vs. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corpn. and another, reported in 2004 A.C.J. Page 481. 4. In the matter of Smt. Shalini wd/o Ghanshyam 4 Nimje (supra) the Bombay High Court held that expression legal representative under Section 166 would mean and include the legal representative of the deceased according to law of succession by which deceased was governed. Admittedly in the present case the Petitioner is Class-I legal heir, whereas the Respondent being father in law, is Class-II legal heir. In similar way in the matter of Halkibai (supra), Madhya Pradesh High Court held that if Class-I legal heir is available then the Class-II legal heir, is not entitled to any compensation. On the basis of these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned order passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon is against the justice, equity and good conscious and the same is not according to law. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent argued that at the time of apportionment, it is the duty to the Court to see dependency of the legal heirs. Learned counsel for the Respondent 5 further submitted that though the Respondent No.2 is Class-II legal heir, he is entitled for compensation on the basis of the dependency. 6. Admittedly the Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 25th May, 2009 considering that the Respondent is Class-II legal heir and therefore is he is entitled to some portion of the compensation awarded in favour of the Petitioner. Considering the Authorities cited by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, it is crystal clear that the Respondent being Class-II legal her, is not entitled to any compensation. Therefore, Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B), which reads as under: "(B) The order dtd 25.05.2009 passed by the Ld. Member, M.A.C.T., Jalgaon below Ex.40 & 42 in M.A.C.P. No. 373/06 to the extent of allotting Rs.1,00,000/- by way of apportionment to Respondent may kindly be quashed and set aside by 6 rejecting Ex.42 filed by the Respondent and the Ex.40 filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed." 7. The Petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire amount deposited by the Insurance Company in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon. 8. Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above. [K.K. TATED, J.] asb/SEPT09/wp3784.09