First Appeal From Order No. 1091 of 2007. Case: U.P. Rajya Sadak Parivahan Nigam Sapru Marg Vs Leelawati Devi. High Court of Allahabad (India)
| Case Number | First Appeal From Order No. 1091 of 2007 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Akhter Abbas, Adv. and For Respondents: Dharmendra Trivedi, Adv. |
| Judges | Anil Kumar, J. |
| Issue | Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 2(1)(g); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 2(11); Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 - Sections 1A, 2; Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 8; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 279, 304A, 337, 427; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 140, 145, 158, 162, 163, 163A, 165, 166, 168, 2; ... |
| Judgement Date | December 02, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Allahabad (India) |
Judgment:
Anil Kumar, J.
-
Heard Sri Akhter Abbas, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Dharmendra Trivedi, learned counsel for respondents/claimants.
-
Undisputed facts of the present case are that on 7.8.2006 at about 7.00 p.m. Sri Ramesh Kumar on his motorcycle (U.P. 33 H/299) alongwith his friend Ram Bahadur are coming from Gaurauli Budhkar to Gadaganj. When they reached the shop of Datadin Maurya, U.P. S.R.T.C. bus (U.P. 33A/9695) due to rash and negligent driving of the driver dashed the motorcycle, as a result of which Sri Ramesh Kumar sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot, his friend Ram Bahadur also sustained grievous injuries. In this regard an F.I.R. at police station Gadaganj under Section 279/337/427/304A I.P.C. At the time of death of Sri Ramesh Kumar was aged about 20 years, passed intermediate, done diploma in computer application from Aman Computer Centre, Rae bareli, employed in Avadh Computer Center, as teacher, his monthly income was Rs. 4800/- per month.
-
In view of the said factual back ground a claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereafter referred to as 'Act') by the claimant namely, (1) Smt. Leelawati Devi, mother of the deceased, (2) Sri Pramod Kumar, brother of the deceased and (3) Km. Neelam, sister of the deceased, registered as M.A.C. No. 298 of 2006 (Leetalwati and others v. U.P. S.R.T.C., Lucknow and another) before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District judge, Court No. 8, Rae Bareli. By order dated 8.8.2007 allowed the claim petition awarding a sum of Rs. 99,000/- to claimant No. 1/Leelawati, mother of the deceased and Rs. 50,000/- each to claimant No. 2/Pramod Kumar Singh and claimant No. 3/Km. Neelam (brother and sister of the deceased) alongwith 7% interest from the date of filing of claim petition.
-
Sri Akhter Abbas, learned counsel for the appellant while challenging the impugned judgment and award submits that the claim petition filed on behalf of brother and sister of the deceased is not maintainable as they are not "legal representatives" of the deceased Sri Ramesh Kumar because the world 'legal representative' as mentioned under Section 166 of the Act has neither been defined under Section 2(definition) nor under Section 145 of the Act so as per the provisions of section 2(24-A) of the U.P. General Clauses Act 1904 quoted as under:--
"(24-A) Legal representative-"Legal representative" shall have the same meaning at in the code of Civil Procedure 1908;"
-
Read with the definition of legal representative will be same as define under Section 2(11) of the C.P.C. and Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act quoted herein below:--
" Section 2(11) C.P.C. " 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;
Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. General rules of Succession in the case of males. The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of the Chapter-
(a) Firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule;
(b) Secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class II of the Schedule;
(c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; and
(d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased.
-
Once the mother of deceased is alive, claim petition filed on behalf of his brother and sister is not maintainable, liable to be dismissed on ground of mis-joinder of necessary parties.
-
The next arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that even if the claim petition is maintainable on behalf of the claimant Nos. 2 and 3, namely Pramod Kumar Singh, brother of the deceased and Km. Neelam, sister of the deceased then in that circumstances, the other two sons of the Smt. Leelawati should joined as claimants or they should have been made respondents in the claim petition as the same has not been done as per the provisions of Section 166 of the Act, the claim petition is not maintainable.
-
Last arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal has wrongly taken multiplier while awarding the compensation taking into consideration the age of the deceased, it should have been into consideration the age of the mother (as the claim petition is only maintainable on behalf of the mother), so the judgment and award dated 8.8.2007 passed by Tribunal is contrary to law as laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Singh and another v. Satbir Singh and another) 2008 AIR SCW, 1238, liable to be set aside.
-
Sri Dharmendra Trivedi, learned counsel for respondents/claimants submits that the claim petition filed by the claimants is maintainable under Section 166 of the Act. He further submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the award passed by the tribunal while adopting the multiplier of 16 taking into consideration the age of the deceased/Ramesh Kumar, hence the present appeal filed by U.P.S.R.T.C lacks merit, liable to be dismissed.
-
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
-
Human life is precious. The road users have a fundamental right to life and liberty which includes the right to safety and immediate payment of compensation in the event of unavoidable accidents. It is the duty of the State to ensure safety on roads and to ensure due process of law for expeditious payment of compensation in the event of injury or death of the road users arising out of the use of motor vehicles on the roads.
-
More people die of road accidents than by most diseases, so much so the Indian highways are among the top killers of the country
-
Parking of heavy vehicles on the wrong side, hurrying past traffic signals on the sly, neglecting to keep to the left of the road, driving vehicles criss-cross, riding scooters without helmets and with whole families on pillions, thoughtless cycling and pedestrian jay walking with lawless ease, suffocating jam-packing of stage carriages and hell-driving of mini-buses, overloading of trucks with perilous projections and, above all, policemen, if any, proving by helpless presence that law is dead in this milieu charged with melee - such is the daily, hourly scene of summons by Death to innocent persons who take to the roads, believing in the bona fides of the traffic laws.
-
The precious lives of innocent persons are snatched away by the reckless acts of the drivers in motor accidents, and the victims or the kith and kin of the deceased persons are forced to face the brink of darkness of life. The harrowing tales of the hapless victims in the motor accidents speak volumes of heartrending sufferings and pessimism in their lives. Serious injuries often cause life-long disability for the victims which fundamentally affect quality of their life and that of their families.
-
Majority of road crashes involve human error. Careless driving puts the lives of others at risk. The driver not in full control of the vehicle becomes, all too often, a lethal weapon. Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. Therefore, those who fail to demonstrate responsibility forfeit their right to freedom. A rash, negligent, irresponsible or illegal driver has no business to be on the road. A greater level of scrutiny and accountability is required when life is lost or serious injury inflicted.
-
In order to get compensation in an accident arising out of the motor vehicle, one has to move an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act which reads as under:--
Application for compensation:--(1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub- section (1) of Section 165 may be made-
(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or
(b) by the owner of the property; or
(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or
(d) by any...
To continue reading
Request your trial