The supreme court bench comprising Justices S.Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari held that a liberal interpretation of the term legal representatives is necessary to achieve the underlying intent of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The appeal arose from the impugned judgement of the high court of kerala where The High Court lessened the amount of compensation payable to the appellants and thus revised the award passed by the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal. The appellant filed the above claim petition before the MACT for compensation by reason of the death of N. Venugopalan Nair's in a motor vehicle accident. The MACT awarded a total sum of Rs.74,50,971 towards compensation along with interest @ 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. However, the High Court held that appellant no.4 , the deceased’s mother-in-law, was not a legal representative of the deceased. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellants submitted that the High Court was not justified to preclude appellant No.4. She is the deceased's mother-in-law and lived with the deceased and his family. Therefore, for compensation purposes, she was entitled to be treated as a legal representative. On the other hand, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents contended the exact opposite.
Considering the number of deceased dependents, including his mother-in-law (4 persons), one quarter (1/4th) of the deceased’s income was deducted for personal expenses. However, the High court determined the number of dependents as 3 and accordingly deducted 1/3rd of the deceased’s income towards his personal expenses. Sec 166 determines who can file the application for compensation but nowhere in the Motor Vehicles Act, it gives a definition of the term ‘legal representatives’. In simple words, 'legal representative' means a person who represents the succession of the person who has been deceased in law, and includes any person or people in whom the right of compensatory benefits is legally granted. Anyone who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased may also be regarded as a 'legal representative.' The individual does not have to be a legal heir necessarily.
The Supreme Court was of the opinion that a wider interpretation is a necessity to fulfil the real purpose and intent of this legislation. In addition to it, the claimant is under an obligation to establish his loss of dependency. Referring to the case Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Anr [3 (1987) 3 SCC 234] this court stated “ We should remember that in an Indian family brothers, sisters brothers’ children and sometimes foster children live together and they are dependent upon the breadwinner of the family and if the breadwinner is killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, there is no justification to 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”.
The court was of the view that it is not unusual for the Indian Society's mother-in-law to live along with her daughter and her son-in-law and be dependent upon her son-in-law for shelter and maintenance. Appellant No-4 certaining suffered by reason of the death of her son-in-law although she is not his legal heir. Therefore, it is hesitant to argue that she was a legal representative and authorised to maintain a claim request in accordance with Section 166 of the MV Act. Hence, the appeal is allowed.
For reading the complete judgment, please click below:-
N. Jayasree & Ors. V Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co.Ltd [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6451 OF 2021]