Judgment · High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated: 4.7.2006Coram:The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN C.R.P.(PD) No.2786 of 20031.Mariyaee2.Minor Gowri aged 15 years.. Petitionersvs.1.Pappammal2.R.Devakar3.United India Insurance Co.Ltd. I Floor, 50A, Pallivasal Street Perambalur.. RespondentsC. Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of theConstitution of India against the order dated 14.11.2003,passed in I.A.No.1141/2003 in M.C.O.P.No.737/2000, on thefile of the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal andDistrict Judge, Perambalur. For Petitioner: M/s.G.R.SwaminathanFor Respondents: Mr.P.K.Jamal MohammedORDER: This Revision Petition has been filed against theorder dated 14.11.2003, passed in I.A.No.1141/2003 inM.C.O.P.No.737/2000, on the file of the Court of MotorAccident Claims Tribunal and District Judge, Perambalur.2. The unsuccessful proposed parties who filedI.A.No.1141/2003 in M.C.O.P.No.737/2000 are the RevisionPetitioners.3. The Revision Petitioners filed I.A.No.1141/2003under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure toimplead themselves in the main petition filed by 1strespondent herein for claiming compensation for the deathof her (1st respondent) husband, by contending that they arethe daughter-in-law and grand-daughter of the deceased https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ husband of the 1st respondent herein. It was resisted bythe 1st respondent (claimant) on the ground that her sonGandhi died on 26.10.1996, long after the death of herhusband who died on 11.1.1990 and therefore they are notdependents of her deceased husband. 4. The trial court accepted this contention and alsoheld that the revision petitioners are not class I heirsof the deceased and the petition has been filed belatedlyafter a lapse of 12 years from the date of death of thehusband of the 1st respondent herein. Aggrieved by thisorder, the above revision petition has been filed.5. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionpetitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.6. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 dealswith the filing of an application arising out of anaccident. Sec.166 is extracted for better appreciation:-"166. Application for compensation:- (1)An application for compensation arisingout of an accident of the naturespecified in sub-section (1) of Section165 may be made-(a) by the person who has sustainedthe injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted fromthe accident, by all or any of the legalrepresentatives of the deceased, as thecase may be; or (d) by any agent duly authorised bythe person injured or all or any of thelegal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:Provided that where all the legalrepresentatives of the deceased have notjoined in any such application forcompensation, the application shall bemade on behalf of or for the benefit ofall the legal representatives of thedeceased and the legal representativeswho have not so joined, shall beimpleaded as respondents to theapplication.(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the optionof the claimant, either to the Claims https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tribunal having jurisdiction over thearea in which the accident occurred, orto the Claims Tribunal within the locallimits of whose jurisdiction theclaimant resides or carries on businessor within the local limits of whosejurisdiction the defendant resides, andshall be in such form and contain suchparticulars as may be prescribed:Provided that where no claim forcompensation under Section 140 is madein such application, the applicationshall contain a separate statement tothat effect immediately before thesignature of the applicant(3) ***(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treatany report of accidents forwarded to itunder sub-section (6) of Section 158 asan application for compensation underthis Act." 7. Every Legal Representative who suffers on accountof death of a person due to motor vehicle accident shouldhave a remedy for realisation of compensation and that isprovided by sub-clause 1(c) and (d) of Sec.166 of the MotorVehicles Act, 1988. It is for the tribunal to determinethe compensation which appears to be just and to specifythe person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid. The said Section contains a proviso, which says that whereall the legal representatives of the deceased have notjoined in any such application for compensation, theapplication shall be made on behalf of or for the benefitof all the legal representatives of the deceased (emphasissupplied) and the legal representatives who have not sojoined shall be impleaded as respondents to theapplication. This proviso to Sec.166 has been introducedobviously for the purpose of avoiding multifarious claimsin respect of the same accident. If one of the main legalrepresentatives can file a claim petition without referenceto others then there is a possibility of many claimpetitions being filed in respect of the same accident. Itis with a view to avoid such a situation and also to ensurethat one legal representative does not get the compensationand run away with it without the knowledge of the otherlegal representatives the proviso has been introduced. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

#8. Therefore the order of the tribunal is patentlywrong as the same is not in consonance with the letter andspirit of Sec.166 of the Act, 1988 and the tribunal oughtnot to have rejected the impleading petition on the basisof limitation and dependency.9. Hence the order of the tribunal dated 14.11.2003 isset aside and the tribunal is directed to implead therevision petitioners in M.C.O.P.No.737/2000 and proceed todetermine the compensation in accordance with law. 10. Considering the fact that the accident took placeon 11.1.90 and the claim petition was taken on file in theyear 2000, it is appropriate to direct the tribunal todispose of M.C.O.P.No.737/2000 within three months from thedate of receipt of copy of this order preferably on day-to-day basis. In the result this Civil Revision Petition isallowed. No costs. C.M.P.No.21038/2003 is closed. sksSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarToThe District JudgeThe Motor Accidents Claims TribunalPerambalur. Copy to:The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras+ one cc to Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, Advocate sr no. 29017TEJ(CO)NM(13.07.2006)C.R.P.(PD)2786/03.