B.K. Roy, C.J.
1. The appellant assails validity of the order dated 16th February, 2005 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Dibrugarh, holding that as per the provisions as constrained in Hindu Succession Act sons and daughters both are heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Mohan Bora ; that the claimant Ruben Bora (who is the appellant) by suppressing material that in regard to existence of the daughters of Late Mohan Bora, had filed claim petition and got the matter settled before Lok Adalat without issuance of any notice to the daughters, and, thus, the compensation awarded has to be equally distributed amongst the heirs and legal representatives of late Mohan Bora.
2. Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted as follows :
(a) According to the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in 1989 ACJ 1128 the married daughters are not entitled for compensation under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He, however, does not place the alleged judgment of the Allahabad High Court for our perusal;
(b) The father had deprived the married daughters from having share in his properties inasmuch as in his service papers he has not described his daughters as his nominees ;
(c) In fact a Will was executed by the father bequeathing his properties to the appellant.
3. It is well known that the provisions as contained in Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation for a person, who has sustained injury or where death has resulted from the accident, for the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased.
3.1 Section 166 of the Act read 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) 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 an 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 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.
(emphasis supplied)
4. Apparently, the Legislature has used the words 'legal representatives' of the deceased. These words have not been defined under the Act but in Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under :
'Legal Representatives' means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or issued in representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued.
4.1 We are of the view that this definition will be applicable to the compensation proceeding under the Act.
4.2 Admittedly, the daughters are Class I heirs under Section 8(a) read with Schedule of the Hindu Succession Act, 1954. The question as to whether they are married or unmarried is wholly irrelevant.
4.3 All the heirs and legal representatives of Late Mohan Bora in law would be co-share, A co-sharer, it is well known, represent the interest of other co-share, unless he comes up with a proper pleading in relation to ouster and prove it by convincing evidence.
5. The second submission does not impress us at all. By not describing the daughter as his nominee, it cannot be held that the father has deprived his daughter of succession of his property.
6. Now we come to the last submission. A Hindu can dispose of his property as contemplated under Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act. The existence of any such Will was not whispered before the Tribunal what to talk of grant of Letters of Administration and/or of a Probate. We do not find any pleading anywhere in this regard. Be that as it may, we also hold that a Will has to be proved in accordance with law and no right accrued to the appellant to deprive his sisters in regard to succession of the estate of the father. Thus, we reject this submission also of the learned Counsel for the appellant.
7. Unfortunately, the appellant had suppressed the fact of the existence of the applicants his two married sisters, who along with him had succeeded the estate of the deceased. The view taken by the Tribunal that the amount awarded and received by the appellant has to be equally distributed is in spirit of the Proviso to Section 166 of the Act.
8. At this stage of this order, we are being informed by Mr. Konwar that cheques have been handed over to the two sisters in regard to the proportionate awarded amount.
9. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.