SMT. MANJURI BERA v. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANR

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 590

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, S.H. KAPADIA

Case summary

SMT. MANJURI BERA v. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANR.pdf

Judgment text

SMT. MANJURI BERA v. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LID~ AND ANR. MARCH 30, 2007 [DR. ARIIlT PASAYAT AND S. H. KAPADIA, JJ. ] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Ss. 140, 166 and 168/West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989/Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; s 2(ii). Motor Vehicles accident-Death-Claim Petition-Legal representative not dependent on deceased-Entitlement to-Held: In case of vehicular accident, all/any of legal representatives of the deceased entitled to claim compensation-Any ofthem could file a claim petition-Liability in terms of s. 140 ofthe Act does not cease merely because ofabsence ofdependency- Right to file claim has to be considered in the back ground of right to entitlement-Even if there is no loss of dependency, the claimant/legal representative would be entitled to compensation. Words and Phrases: 'Legal representatives '-Meaning and scope df in :terms rdf s.

2(ii) CPC-Discussed Appellant's·father lost his life in a vehicular accident caused by a Mini Truck belonging to respondent No. 2. As the deceased had:no«lther. legal heir, a claim petition was lodged by his married daughter1und:er s. 140(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Respondent No. I, the insurer With w. hom'the offending vehicle was the subject-matter ofinsurance filed a written stat:em:ent taking the stand that since the claimant was not dependant upon the'deceased, there was no question ofany compensation being paid. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition accepting the stand of the insurer. An appeal was filed by the appellant before the High Court questioning the correctness ofthe Tribunal's view. The High Court by the impugned judgment held that the appeal was without merit and dismissed the·same. Hence the present appeal Amicus Curiae submitted that the view taken by1he Tribunal and the MANJURIBERAv. THEORIENTALINSURANCECOMPANYLTD. Ill ; -.

will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall be not less than the liability flowing from Section 140 ofthe Act. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There will be no order as to costs. We record our appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Shri Jayant Bhushan, the learned Amicus Curiae. SKS. Appeal allowed. KAPADIA, J. l. Although I agree with the operative part ofthe judgment 4, proposed to be delivered by my esteemed brother Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J, I would like to give my own reasons. ~ 2. In the Present case the married daughter ofthe victim (deceased) filed the claim under Section 140 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying for statutory compensation on account of the death of her father. As stated, the application was made under Section 140 of the Said Act. That Section makes it clear that "No Fault Liability" is cast on the owner of the vehicle and not directly on the insurer. Before an order is passed under Section 140, the ,. ,_ ,.

Tribunal must be satisfied that the accident arose out of a motor vehicle which resulted in permanent disablement or death and that the claim is made against the owner and the insurer of the offending motor vehicle. MANJURIBERAv. THEORIENTALINSURANCECOMPANYLTD. [KAPADIA,J. ] 3. In the present case, as stated above, the victim's married daughter has made her claim under Section 140 of the said Act saying that she has five children; that they are minors; that she was brought up her uncle; that after her mother's death the deceased lived in the same house which the claiment was living with her uncle before her marriage; that the deceased was a mason that after her marriage she lived with her husband and, therefore, she was entitled to get statutory compensation under Section 140 of the said Act. 4. In the impugned judgment the High Court has correctly drawn a . - distinction between "right to apply for compensation" and "entitlement to ~ compensation".

The High Court has rightly held that even a married daughter is a legal representative and she is certainly entitled to claim compensation. It was further held, on the facts ofthe present case, that the married daughter was not dependent on her father. She was living with her husband in her husband's house. Therefore, she was not entitled to claim statutory compensation. According to the High Court, the claimant was not dependent on her father's income. Hence, She was not entitled to claim compensation based on "No Fault Liability". 5. In my opinion, "No Fault Liability", envisaged in Section 140 of the "" ~,,. said Act, is distinguishable from the rule of "Strict Liability". In the former, the compensation amount is fixed. It is Rs. 50,000/- in cases ofdeath [Section 140 (2)). It is a statutory liability. It is an amount which can be deducted from the final amount awarded by the Tribunal.

Since, the amount is a fixed amount/crystallized amount, the same has to be considered as part of the estate of the deceased. In the present case, the deceased was an earning member. The statutory compensation could constitute part of his estate. His legal representative, 'lamely, his daughter has inherited his estate. She was entitled to inherit his estate. In the circumstances, she was entitled to recieve ..... compensation under "No fault Liability" in terms of Section 140 of the said '1' Act. My opinion is confined only to the "No Fault Liability" under Section 140 ofthe said Act. That section is a Code by itself within the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 6. For the above separate reasons, I agree with the conclusion, namely, the appeal be allowed with no order as to costs. S. KS. Appeal allowed.