s- L-(--,^ THE mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. © No.9- 009 -r..°-•*<-, RaP.S liKv^S^ u^?s< '*^5 ^ ;'"->; APPELLANTS.. APPLICANT /* a l'. •• " ^:A V' ^••-" ^^; V (1) Durgaram Age About 42 Years S/o Dhaniiram, Cast- Halba ^;^ .- A(^-^ >'1- '/.'!„^^ (2)Delibai Age About 45 Years ^- ,M^ i' • ^^^ D/o DhEmuram'c:ast- Halba ,.-0 Both ofthem are R/o Vill.- Faradfode, P.S.- Devri, Tah.- Dondilohara, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT NON-APPLICANT (1) Yadavram S/o Gopah-am - Thakur R/o Village-Faradfode Tah. —DondiLohara District- Durg(C.G.) (Driver ofVehicle Tractor No. CG-07 D 8765 and Trali No. CG-07 D 8766) (2) Anil Kumar Prajapati S/o Aakantali Prajapati R/o Village-Faradfode Tah. -Dondi Lohara District- Durg(C.G.) (Owner ofthe Vehiele) [3) Ifco Tokyo General Insurance Co. Itd. Through - Branch 'L^ Bt>^' Manager, Ifco Tokyo General Insurance Co. Itd. Branch Office - Lal Ganga Shoping Mall G.E. Road Raipur Distt.- Raipur ( C.G.) (Insurance Co. ofVehicle TractorNo. CG-07 D 8765 and TraHNo.CG-07D8766) Appeal under Section 173 Ofthe Motor Vehicle Act 1988 HIGH COURT QF CHHAmSGARH, BILASPUR HON'BLB I.M. QUDDUSI & HON'BLE PRASHANT Kr. MISHRA, JJ SC. APPEAL (C 1 No. 273/2009 ^ Durgaram and auother Vs. . Yadavram and others APPBAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT APPBARANCE: Mr. Devrishi Singh Thakur, couasel for the appeUants. Mr. Rakesh Sahu, couusel for respondents 1 & 2. Mr. Raghavendra Singh, counsel for respondent no.3. ORDER(ORAL) {24.01.2011) Per I.M. QUDDUSI. J, 1. This appeal has been filed by the claimaats against the impugned dated 04.12.2008 passed by the Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Balod, District Dui-g (C.G) in Claim Case No. 14/2008 disinissmg tiie claiia petition, as not inaiatainable. 2. Brief facts of fhe case as per fhe version of fhe claimants are as under: (i) The claimants are brotber aad sister ofdeceased Gita Bai who was xaarried wifh Shankarlal Halba, a resident of viUage Limhora. After a few days of the niamage; ber husbaud died. Therefore, Gita Bai started residing ia her inateraal home at village Faradfod.. Her brother Durga Ram who is physically .^'3?'"%., wy "^ - "^ haadicapped aad Theli Bai,,aa unmamed sister bofh were also residiag vnth fhe deceased. (ii) On 21.01.2008 deceased Gita Bai was returaiag froxa fhe niatriinoiual village Limhora to vfflage Faradfod by Tractor havmg Regn.No.C.G.07-D/8765 &, Trofly Registration No. C.G.07-D/9766. When the said vehicle, which was being driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash aiid negUgent inanner, reached near the house of one Suresh Rana of ViUage Faradfod inet wifh accident, as a result of which Gita Bai feU down. Irom. fhe Tractor and sustaiued grievous injuries on her chest aad back side. She was admitted ia Shahid Hospital, DaUirajahra, where she died during fhe course of treatinent. (iiij The deceased was haviag aanual iacoine of Rs.60,000/- by ineaQs of agricultural works. Besides this, she was also workmg as Aagaabadi worker and was eaming Rs.500/- per inonfh The clannaats beiag dependents and legal representatives of fhe deceased, have inade claun to fhe tune of Rs. 16,45,000/- on. various heads. 3. TIie leamed Claicas Tribuiial disinissed the Claitu Petition on the ground fhat ftie clamiants are not fhe legal representatives of fhe deceased as they are brofher aad sister and fherefore, they are not entifled to receive any coinpensation. However, siace the deceased was widow, her > io.-laws are deemed to be legal representatives. The Tribunal has recorded the findings fhat the offending vehicle has inet '-<?". ^ '^, ." '<1^^..^.^' ^ .^' with accident whea respondent no. 1 was driviug it ia a rash aad negligent inaiuier, as a result ofwhich, the deceased has died and there was no negligence on fhe part of the deceased. 4. It has conie in fhe evidence fhat about 20 vears before the date of accident, the deceased was Biarried aud after 15 days of her inanriage, she becatae widow and came back to her matemal house ui viUage Farodfod where her physically haadicapped brofher aad an uumamed sister were Uviag. She extended fuiaucial help to theni as the brofher was unable to-perfonn any work due to the reason fliat he is crippled aud both his legs arc not fuiictioning. The sister was also uruaamed and was dependent on her. In fhe xaatenial house, fhe deceased was earauig by dpiag agricultural works. It was also stated fhat fhat deceased was aa Anganbadi worker but it could not be proved by ffling docunients. Thus the claunaats were depeadent upon the deceased and were Uving with her iu village Farodfod. 5. Section 166(1) ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that an application for conipeusation arising out of an accident of the nature speci&ed iu sub-section(l) of section 165 inay be Biade by fhe person who has sustaiiied fhe injuiy; or by the owner of the property; or where deafh has resulted froin the accident, by aU or auy of fhe legal representatives of fhe deceased. A proviso to this section has been added fhat where aU the legal representatives of fhe deceased have not joined in. any such application for coiupensation, fhe application shall be inade on behalf of or for the benefit of all 7, the legal representatives of fhe deceased aad the legal representatives who have not so joiaed, shaU be inipleaded as respondents to the appUcation. 6. Legal Representative" has not been defined ia fhe Motor Vehicles Act or fhe Rules made thereiuider. It has been defined in sub-section (l l) of section 2 of fhe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which reads as under: legal representative ineans a person who iri law represents the estate of a deceased person, aud racludes aay person who intermeddles wifh fhe estate offhe deceased and where a party sues or is sued ia a representative character fhe person on whoni fhe estate devolves on the deafh of the party so si-iing or sued; 7. Certainly when fhe clatmaats were dependiag upon fheir widow sister by all ineaas aad she was liviag with fheia ia the inateraal hoine, it would be deenied fhat they represent the estate ofthe deceased aad intertneddle wifh fhe estate of fhe deceased and therefore, are legal representatives of fhe deceased. The eamiag offhe widow sister is fhe inain source . of livelthood of fhe claiiaaats who were dependent on fhe deceased aad if she was feediag her brother who is haadicapped aad unable to walk as also the iinmarried sister and in case of her deafh by a niotor accident, her dependents fhat is unmarried sister and physically haudicapped brofher are eatitled to file claixu petition in the capacity of legal representatives, as already discussed above. 1 8. In case of Smt. Manjuri Bera Vs. The Oriental Insurcm.ee Company Lid., and another in AppeaJ (Civil) No. 1702/2007, x ^^' 9. dedded on 30h of March, 2007, relymg upoa ttie decision rendered in Ctistodicui Branches of BASCO Natloneil mtranwrino V. Ndltnl JBai Naiyue (AOR 1989 SC 1S89), Hon'ble the Supreine Court held that The defixiition contaiaed ia Section 2(11) CPC is iiiclusive iu character and its scope is wide, it is not confmed to legal heirs only. Instead it stipulates fhat a person who ruay or inay not be legal heir, coinpetent to inherit the property of fhe deceased caa represent fhe estate offhe deceased person. It iacludes heirs as weU as persons wbo represent the estate eveu without tifle either as executors or adicuiustrators ia possession of the estate of fhe deceased. AU such persons would be covered by the expression legal representative." In Snit. Maujuri Bera's case (supra), the Supreme Court has further reUed on a decision rendered in Gtyweit State Road Tremsport Corporation, Ahmedeibad v. Rafiumbhed Pratoha hed and another (AIR 1987 SC 1690) and observed that "a legal representative is one who suffers on accouut of deafh of a person due to a inotor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent aud child.' In view of the above inentioned facts aud law, djsmissing the claim by the Tribuital on the ground that clamiaats are not tiie legal representatives aud the in-Iaws are the legal representatives ofthe deceased who became widow 20 years before the incident fhat is afler 15 days of her inandage aud thus the clamiaats are not entitled to get conipensation, is erroneous, The Tribunal should have determined fhe legal rep.resentatives ofthe deceased as defiaed in sub-section (11) n g of section 2 of CPC as inentioned above aad fhen only should have given its finding, which has not been done. 10. In view ofwhat has been stated above, we are ofthe opinion that the findiags given ia the impugned award are also liable to be set aside. Tberefore, the unpugned award dated 04.12.2008 as weU as the findings given fhereia are set aside. The niatter is remitted back to ttie Tribunal for decision afresh. Needless to mention fhat the Tribuiial shall provide opportiinily to the parties to a-mend the pleadings, adduce farther evidence, ifaay, file fhe dociunents or get the docuiaents verified etc., and thereafter it shaU decide fhe claun petition afresh at the earUest ia liglit of the observations uiade hereia above. The records of the Tnbuiial shall be sent back wifhout further delay. 11. In fhe result, the appeal is atlowed ia part . No order as to costs. —_______ SA'- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge 1