Seshapu Ramulamma Vs. Doppalapudi Raju and ors. - Court Judgment

V.V.S. Rao, J.

1. Whether a married sister can maintain a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act, for brevity) is the short but interesting question that falls for consideration in this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Act. Before addressing the question, brief background of the case may be noticed.

2. Tadivada Bangarappadu aged about 50 years at the relevant time was a member of Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency. He was also fair price shop dealer statedly earning Rs. 2,500/- per month. On 18.05.1996 at 10.45 am while going towards Sri kakulam side on his luna, at a place near petrol bunk, Pusapatirega, a lorry bearing No. AP 12 T 4419 driven by first respondent dashed against him, resulting in instantaneous death of Bangarappadu.

3. Smt. Seshapu Ramulamma appellant herein who is aged about 55 years filed O.P. No. 327 of 1996 before the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vizinagaram. She claimed that she is sister of deceased and that she is lone surviving legal representative entitled to the estate and compensation that maybe awarded under the Act. As it generally happens, driver and owner of offending vehicle remained ex parte. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, third respondent herein, opposed OP denying the right of appellant to claim compensation as legal heir. Relevant to the two issues framed, appellant let in evidence - oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and documentary evidence of Exs. A1 to A4. Ex. B1 copy of insurance policy was marked. On the question of negligence the point was held in favour of appellant. However, on the question of entitlement and quantum, learned Tribunal while placing reliance on A.P.S.R.T.C. Corporation v. Shafiya Khatoon 1985 ACJ 212 wherein it was held that a married sister is not entitled to maintain a petition under Section 166 of the Act as she cannot be considered a dependent legal heir, OP was dismissed, aggrieved by which instant appeal is filed.

4. Learned Counsel for appellant placed reliance on Gujarat S.R.T.C. v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai : [1987]3SCR404 and submits that even an unmarried sister is entitled to maintain claim petition under the Act. Per contra, learned standing counsel forinsurer placed reliance on Shafiya (supra), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. P. Prabhavathi : 1996(4)ALT449 and Smt. Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. : AIR2007SC1474 and submits that a married sister cannot be treated as a dependent or legal representative entitled to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Act. The Act does not define 'legal representative'. Section 166 of the Act is enabling provision for claiming compensation. All the legal representatives of the deceased who died or sustained injuries in a motor accident can make an application to a claims tribunal constituted under Section 165 of the Act. In Shafiya (supra) a Division Bench of this Court considered the question whether the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, can be shared by the dependents not enumerated under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. The Division Bench, while observing that the concept of 'legal representative' has to be liberally interpreted, laid down as under.

In our view the provisions under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 not only empower the Tribunal to make an award which is 'just' but also empower the said Tribunal to specify the person or persons to whom the compensation shall be paid, thereby permitting apportionment of compensation payable under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 to persons other than those enumerated in the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. In our view all the legal representatives of the deceased, according to the person law applicable to the deceased, will be entitled to apportionment of the dependency as per their needs and according to their age and apportionment is not limited to the class of persons enumerated under Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act read with Section 4 thereof.

However, concerning a married sister of deceased, the Division Bench added as below.

The further question is as to who are entitled to receive these sums. The dependency, according to the liberal view accepted by us, is to go to all the legal heirs of the deceased who died intestate. The heirs are the mother and sisters, married and unmarried. But the married sisters, not being any longer dependent get nothing. The dependency goes to the mother and the unmarried sisters.

In Megjibhai Khimji Vira v. Chaturbhai Taljabhai : AIR1977Guj195 Gujarat High Court held that all the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased could maintain a claim petition under Section 110-A of 1939 Act. It was a case of nephew of the deceased claiming compensation. In a subsequent case, Gujarat High Court upheld the claim of the brother of the person killed in a motor vehicle accident for compensation. The same was subject matter of appeal in Ramanbhai (supra) before Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that every legal representative who suffers on account of death of a person due to motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realization of compensation that is provided under Section 110-A of 1939 Act. It was further held.. It is for the Motor Vehicles Accidents Tribunal to determine the compensation which appears to it to be just as provided in Section 110-B of the Act to specify the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid. The determination of the compensation payable and its apportionment as required by Section 110-B of the Act amongst the legal representatives for whose benefit an application may be filed under Section 110-A of the Act have to be done in accordance with well-known principles of law. We should remember that in an Indian family brothers, sisters and brothers' children and sometimes foster children live together and they are dependent upon the bread-winner of the family and if the bread-winner is killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, there is no justification to deny them compensation relying upon the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which as we have already held has been substantially modified by the provisions contained in the Act in relation to cases arising out of motor vehicles accidents. We express our approval of the decision in Megjibhai Khimji Vira. v. Chaturbhai Taljabhai AIR 1977 Guj 195 and hold that the brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to maintain a petition under Section 110-A of the Act if he is a legal representative of the deceased.

5. Thus if a person is shown to be legal representative entitled for compensation, petition for compensation would be maintainable, otherwise not.

6. After repeal of 1939 Act by 1988 Act, Central Government made Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. These Rules also do not define 'legal representative' or 'dependent'. Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (the Rules, for brevity) by Rule 2(g) define 'legal representative' by reference to Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. As per Section 2(11) CPC a legal representative 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 is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. The decisions analyzed supra do not consider Rule 2(g) of the Rules. Though the words of 'legal representative' used under Section 110-A of 1939 Act fell for consideration in those decisions. Further in P. Prabhavathi (supra) a Division Bench of this Court applying the ratio in APSRTC v. P. Raghavaiah 1989 ACJ 622 (A.P.) and Padma Devi v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation 1988 ACJ 667 (Allahabad) and Ors. decisions, held that a married daughter would be ineligible to partake a share in the compensation granted as dependent though an unmarried daughter would be eligible to a share in the compensation.

7. The conspectus of the legal provisions and the case law would show that though married daughter, unmarried daughter, married sister and unmarried sister, brother, nephew all come in the category of legal representatives, all of them would not be entitled to a share in the compensation awarded under the Act. Shafiya (supra) is a case wherein this Court held that a married sister would not be entitled to claim any compensation though she may be legal representative. The view of the Division Bench is binding on this Court and in the considered opinion of this Court, the definition of 'legal representative' in Section 2(g) of the Rules read with Section 2(11) CPC does not make any difference in the interpretation of the term 'legal representative' for the purpose of 1988 Act. Learned Tribunal has correctly applied the principle and therefore, no necessity arises for interference.

8. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.