*THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.2865 of 2009 % 14.11.2011 Between: # The United India Insurance Company Limited. …Appellant And $ G.Satish Kumar and others. …Respondents ! COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Sri Ramakrishna Reddy ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: Sri Ganta Rama Krishna ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS 4&5: ------- < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.2865 of 2009 JUDGMENT: One Mr. G.Sai Kumar, brother of respondents 1 to 3 was proceeding on a motorcycle along with one Mr.K.Suresh (P.W.2) on National Highway No.7 near Shadnagar. A bus bearing No.AP 22V 1215 owned by the 4th respondent, insured with the appellant and on hire with the 5th respondent dashed against the motorcycle near Gollapally Stage. Sai Kumar died on the spot. O.P.No.552 of 2006 was filed by respondents 1 to 3 claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. It was stated that the deceased was working as a cable operator, aged about 25 years and was unmarried. His parents are said to have died after the occurrence of the accident, but before the institution of the O.P. They pleaded that the deceased died on account of the rashness on the part of the driver of the bus. The 4th respondent remained ex parte. The O.P. was contested by the appellant alone. It was pleaded that the accident occurred on account of the fact that the deceased was traveling on a motorcycle with three passengers and he lost balance. It was also pleaded that the bus was on hire with the A.P.S.R.T.C. and that the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. An objection was also raised as to the maintainability of the O.P. on the ground that respondents 1 to 3 cannot be treated as dependants. The quantum of compensation is also assailed. The Tribunal passed an order dated 10.10.2007 awarding compensation of Rs.2,66,000/- and apportioned the same among respondents 1 to 3. The same is challenged in this appeal. Sri Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is only the dependants of the deceased that can maintain a claim petition and that being the brothers and married sister of the deceased, respondents 1 to 3 are not entitled to claim compensation. He further submits that the Tribunal committed error in holding that the accident occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus as well as in determination of the compensation. Sri Ganta Rama Krishna, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 on the other hand submits that evidence on record clearly established that the accident occurred due to the rashness on the part of the driver of the bus. He contends that Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act confers right upon the legal representatives of a deceased in the accident to file a claim petition and it is not necessary that the claimant must necessarily be a dependant of the deceased. Learned counsel submits that by the time the accident occurred, the parents of the deceased were very much alive and in that view of the matter, the claim in the O.P. can be said to be in relation to the estate of the deceased Sai Kumar or of his parents. As to quantum also, learned counsel submits that the Tribunal has taken the correct parameters into account. The Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration: 1. Whether the accident took place at about 5:20 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of bus bearing No.AP 22V 125 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from respondents? If so, to what amount and from whom? To prove their case, respondents 1 to 3 examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and filed Exs.A.1 to A.9. No documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant and the insurance policy was filed as Ex.B.1. Both the issues were answered in favour of the respondents 1 to 3. The first contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is as to the very maintainability of the O.P. They contend that respondents 1 to 3, who are the brothers and married sister of the deceased, are not entitled to claim compensation. In this context, it becomes necessary to take note of Section 166 (1) of the Act. It reads as under: 166. Application for compensation:- (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made- (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) 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: 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 or behalf of or for the benefit 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. From a perusal of Clause (c), it becomes clear that right is conferred upon the legal representatives to claim compensation, in case the victim of the accident died. The expression “legal representative” is in fact lesser in connotation and stringency than the expression “legal heir”. Any person, who is a legal representative either by virtue of succession or through other means known to law, can be a legal representative and maintain the claim petition. The provision does not insist that a claimant under it must be dependant upon the deceased. That question becomes relevant in the context of apportionment of compensation. The question as to how the compensation is to be arrived and how it is to be distributed among the legal heirs or legal representatives, is a different aspect. The appellant does not deny that respondents 1 to 3 answer the description of legal representative. Therefore, the contention advanced on their behalf cannot be accepted. The next question is about the correctness of the amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal. The deceased was said to be a cable operator. The Tribunal took his income at Rs.3,000/- per month. However, only one-third was deducted towards his personal expenditure and the contribution to the family was taken at Rs.2,000/- per month. This is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In case of unmarried persons, the deduction should be to the extent of 50%. If that is done, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.1500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum. The Tribunal took the age of the mother of the deceased into account and applied the correct multiplier ‘11’. Thus, the annual dependency comes to Rs.1,98,000. A sum of Rs.2,000/- was awarded as funeral expenses. In all, the compensation comes to Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed reducing the compensation to Rs.2,00,000/-. The apportionment ordered by the Tribunal shall remains as it is. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 14.11.2011 Note: L.R.Copy to be marked. (B/o) JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.2865 of 2009 Date: 14.11.2011 Jsu