Form No. J(2) v. Beby Banerjee & Anr.

dependant on the deceased, would be still covered by the expression “legal representative” of the deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera (supra) had expounded that liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the concerned legal representative. Notably, the expression “legal representative” has not been defined in the Act. In Manjuri Bera (supra), the Court observed thus: 9. In terms of clause (c) of subsection (1) of Section 166 of the Act in case of death, all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased become entitled to compensation and any such legal representative can file a claim petition. The proviso to said subsection makes the position clear that where all the legal representatives had not joined, then application can be made on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased by impleading legal representatives as respondents. Therefore, the High Court was justified in its view that the appellant could maintain a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of 10. …..The Tribunal has a duty to make an award, determine the amount of compensation which is just and proper and specify the person or persons to whom such compensation would be paid. The latter part relates to entitlement of compensation by a person who claims for same. 11. According to Section 2(11) CPC, “legal representative” means a person who in law represents the estate of a de ceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues issued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or the Arbitration definition of legal representative under 2(1)(g). and Conciliation Act, 1996 i.e. under Section 12. As observed by this Court in Custodian of Branches in similar Almost sued. Act. 4 executors or may not be estate of the deceased persons who represent BANCO National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique [1989 Supp(2) SCC 275 the definition contained in Section 2(11) CPC is inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is confined to legal heirs only. Instead it stipulates that a person who may legal heir the deceased can competent to inherit the property of It represent the person. includes heirs as well as estate even without title either as administrators in possession of the estate of deceased. All such persons would be covered by the expression “legal representative”. As observed in Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai [(1987) 3 SCC 234 a representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and need not child.” In paragraph 15 of the said decision, while adverting to the provisions of Section 140 of the Act, the loss of Court observed dependency, the claimant, if he was a legal representative, will be entitled to compensation. concurring Kapadia, as His Lordship then judgment of Justice S.H. there is distinction between was, it is observed that “right to apply for compensation” and compensation constitutes part of the compensation”. The estate of the deceased. As a result, the legal representative of the deceased would inherit the estate. Indeed, in that Court was dealing with the case of a married case, the daughter of the deceased and the efficacy of Section 140 of the Act. Nevertheless, the principle underlying the exposition in this decision would clearly come to the aid of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (claimants) even though they are major sons of the deceased and also earning”. “entitlement that even is no In 5

15. However, in view of The Hon’ble Supreme Court held the following in Seema Rani & Ors. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.2 whether irrespective learned counsel

1. We have heard Appellants. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal on the dependents of the deceased. This Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender & Ors., had expounded that the major married and earning sons of the deceased, being legal representatives, have a right to apply for compensation, and the Tribunal must consider the application, representatives are fully dependent of the deceased or not. The Court went on to conclude that since the sons, in that case, were earning merely Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum, they were largely dependent on the earnings of the deceased and were staying with her. 2. Adverting to the facts at hand, on a perusal of the statement of Shashi Kumar, the son of the deceased (Appellant No. 2 herein), annexed as Annexure P6, was working at a petrol pump, while the other son was involved in temporary employment opportunities only. Both of them were residing with the deceased. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that they were self-sufficient or independent of the deceased. Similarly, applying the exposition in Birender (supra), there is no reason to exclude a married daughter from compensation. Therefore, in view of the High Court erred in excluding these dependents.

3. The observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment and order which appeared to be reasoned and this Court is not 2 2025 SAR (CIV) 447 6 inclined to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed.

4. The pending applications, if any, stands dismissed.

5. The interim order, if any, stands vacated.

6. The learned Advocate representing appellant/Insurance Company submits to have deposited a sum of Rs. 12,50,600/=(Rs. 25,000 + 12,25,600/-) through two separate cheques as per challan filed by the Learned Advocate representing the appellant/insurance company.

7. The office of the learned Registrar General High Court at Calcutta, shall encash the cheques and thereafter disburse the entire awarded amount so deposited with accrued interest directly to the bank account of the present respondent Nos. 1 /claimant as mentioned in the impugned judgment and award passed by Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Suri, Birbhum in M.A.C. Case No. 207 of 2016 on proof of proper identification of the respondent No.1/claimant subject to payment of ad 7 valorem Court fees and refund the differential amount if any through a cheque to the Learned Advocate for the insurance company for the accounts of the insurance company. The office of the Learned Registrar General, High Court at Calcutta will instruct the claimant to provide detail of his bank account with relevant documentary proof, prior to such disbursal as aforesaid.

8. The TCR be sent down to the concerned tribunal forthwith.

9. Copy of the order be sent to the Department as well as the concerned tribunal as expeditiously as possible. (Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)