'^,^^'^c.^^^ai 6i^ ^ INTHEHlGHC;0]a lOFJVDIGATURE:'QF:G^HA3^ISGARH .:.'.ATl:®fcASPUR. •:: • ,' , Oivisionl M.iA.<C.),.S ..fi^^.^l26lG:.^^ A'~:. '• :..'.:^:::<'J_;';":^-l!.'-.-i'.^', • •:': . .: .'S/ti D^.shruram.Satnam.i, .(©Imraajitj;'.'\\^^:.\^^,^ l'?ti'^i'i^i^lS'^i'^^ ai.s^a^i^ Aopellant m^ ^ ^espondents • .ftra.ng, Qistnet Raipur (C.G.^ -Vefsusl ."1 -':; ..•:' . ..::'. ;• ; • :, I) ^Pia.sam'Sa.fittafflr S^'Q:;Milap.Satn aggci^:a)3o:tilt 2^ ryears, R/o' 'Village 'FaTf8u(l,-^[PolK^StatiQri^<Arang^ •.]3istrict.^Rai]3i^ ' (C.G.) . (Driyer^;^ ^'^tegedr^'i:^l''?:.^\'B^ei-@^?,,^.,^^ :':e.Q,04H,A.A^54;;j':,,:^;:,,''^.-;:,::. ...AsHak KAiKilar Sa^M^Sya^^^ Sa.tiu,.; '':A:ged.. 'atiout .'34 •years; 'R/ o ^^VUla^&.^^Paisada; . Rolice;^ y^KSsrQta, ^ -Distncf' ' Raipui-:;, :;.,(©.©i),; ^wner , Qf ^leged' BolerCT,^^^-^ .-£:.Q,:Q4-H.AAI^^:'.:';'^ ^;Ifco Tolao: Insiiranee%Com r'i©aii^'.Shoppii^:Maj-lset'PiF^'CTaor, .^.^•;"'G.E,'Road,'RaipUr',(©.Q;)':(I^ •.•.:^legect,,;BDleT(i/^Vehide..^ ^H.^:.ti:54.):'.., ,..;:::: ^ '•^^^ ME;MQ,<3PMIS(:^IsL®®eKS-®RE^EUNDE^ ^•.;:^:.l;...;:OR.M<3'ra^%E»QLB^®^t9a8'^ l.! . e0na^nsa^a:CaaiaiedR&^ 2/ .. Claim./^arded ^^K^^CRs.J'iiI S. A.ppeal^alued •;'•';• RSiG)7,,lp,QQO^- ^IRS ^^ 1^^ -<~*l - i'iin-iTTm-'-iiB—.li.rt!-"J i-«—a>--—^ —n" HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble I. M. QUDDUSI & Hon'ble PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ APPELLANT: RESPONDENTS: M.AIO.No. 1036/2010 Ramdayal Vs. Pusau Satnami 85 others :^ -^ MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 1730F THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT,l988 Appearance: ; Mr. C. K. Sahu, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Amrito Das, counsel for respondent no.3. None for other respondentS. Per I.M. OUDDUSI. J. ORAL ORDER (11.03.2011) 1. This dppeal has been filed by the claimant against the impugned award dated 10thSeptember 2010 passed by the II Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G) in Claim Case No.197/2009 dismissing the claim applicafion of the appellant. 2S Brief facts of the case as per the version of claimant are that on 29.04.2009 deceased Asin Bai, mother of claimant, has . gone tp village Amethi to attend the niarriage ceremony of one'Chandrakant, son of Mohan Chaturvedi. At about 10 p.m., when she was going for Rasm Adayagi along-with others, Bolero vehicle bearing Regn.No.04-NA/1154 which was b.eing driven by resporident no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner dashed her and others, as a result of which deceased sustained grievous injuries, becarae unconscious •^ ahd feU down. In the said accident, Kamla Bai, Mangali Bai, Kusum Bai, Ku. Annapurna and Ku. Pratibha have also sustairied injuries. The deceased was immediately brought to ttie Community Health Center, Arang but she died in the said hospital. At the time of accident, she was aged bout 35 years and was eamuig Rs.150/- per day by doing agncultural and labour works. The appellant being dependent/legal representative of the deceased have niade claiin to the tune QfRs.7,10,000/- on various heads. On the. basis pf evidenGe of Dasru Satnami 85 Markam Das Bifode and jthe document (Ex.P-1) submitted by the claimant, the Tribunal has held that the offending BQlero vehicle bearing Regn.No. C.G.04-HA/1154 met with accident as a resylt of which, the ,deceased died. The 'Tribunal has further worked put the compensation to the extent of Rs.3,62,000/-. But it has raised a question as to whether only the appellant is entitied to receive the said t.-' .... \. ^ ; .•: compensation. Appellant has stated on path in his evidence that husbEind of the deceased had already died, therefore, she has brought up the appellant who is son.of the daughter ofelder father of the deceased (i.e., son of her cousin). There was also a'Will' exeputed in favour of the claimant by the deceased on 14.11.2008 bequeathing all the land in the ownership ofthe deceased. The claimant witnesses namely Dasru Satnami and Markam Das have also stated in their evidence that the claimant is the only legal repres«»''ttativeof the deceased. BB'i'l 's j ^y .i9 ^ ^ 5. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on theground that no probate or succession was filed and as such it is not proved that the claimantwas successor of the deceased. 6. While deciding the claim petitions, it is necessary to decide that the claimant should be dependent on the deceased and the Tribunal has to calculate the loss of dependency though the other close relatives are entitled to get the compensation over other heads i.e., loss of love and affection in case of death of spouse, loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Compensafion towards loss of dependency cannot be granted toa person who was nQt dependent upon the deceased. 7. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that an application for conipensation may be made in case where death has resulted from the accident by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased and the application in case of non-joinder of any legal representative shall be made for the benefit of all the legal representatives and the legal representative(s) who is/are notjoined shall be impleaded as party/respondents to the application. 8.^ 'Legal Representative' has not been defined in the Motor Vehicles Act or the Rules made thereunder. It has been defined in sub-section (11) of Section 2 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure which reads as under. "Legal Representative" means a person who in lawrepresents the estate ofa deceased person .1.. "• . ' '. • • . . . • . ' and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate ofthe deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the %.;Sfii.l ^:"1^.''^. <tel"/''i person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party sp suing or sued." Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Smt. Manjurl Bera -vs- OrientalInsuranceCoinpanyLtdand anotherreported in AIR 2007 SC 1474 has reproduced section 166 6f the Act in para 8 which reads as under: "8. Section 166 of the Act corresponds to Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Old Act>) afad the same reads as fOUows: ''AppUcation for compensation :- (1) An application for compensation arising out ofanaccident pf the nature spepified in sub-sectiori (1) of Section t6S rnay be made- (a) by fhe person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the ownerof the property; or (c) where death has resulted froni the accident, by aU or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorized by tfae person injured or all br any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case inay be. f. . '".-: '•;•'..'.. • . ' ' • . "• •"•.-..•' Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not jokied in any such application for compensation, the application shall be raade on behalf of or for the ;benefit of all the legal representadves of - the deceased and the legal representatives who have notsojoined,shallbe impleaded as respondents to the application. (2) Every applicadon undersub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to fhe Claims Tribunal within fhe local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resi,des or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, Euid shall be in such form and contain such particulars as niay be prescribed:. Provided-that where np claim for compensation under Secfion 140 is made in such appUcation, the »s° &>.,-^t.»-' A •^^y:'^1 ^: di application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immedia.tely before the signata.ire of fhe . applicarit. , xxxxxxxx (4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-seGtion (6) of Section 158 as an application for conipensation under thisAct." 10. In view of the above facts and cireumstances of the case, the Tribunal instead of deciding the dependency of the claimant on the deceased dismissed the claim petitibn on the groiuid of succession. No doubt that succession was also one of the factors as the person who is successor of the deceased would be the legal representadve of the deGeased but this sole factor is not relevant and the fact where such successor was dependent on the deceased was also a factor to detemune the compensation for loss of dependency. In view of the facts and circumstances ofthecase mentioned above, we dispbse of this appeal with a liberty to the appellant t6 file a fresh claim petition after getting a succession cerdficate froru court of law if he was dependent on the deceased when she was alive- Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant KumarMishra Judge J?ao