BHIMRAO SHAMRAO HAWALDAR Vs. RANJANA SHARAD HAWALDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant has taken an exception to the Judgment and Award dated 26th July 2007 passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Islampur. The first and second respondents are the original claimants. The claim petition was filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1988), claiming compensation on account of death of one Sharad Bhimrao Hawaldar in a motor accident. The said Sharad suffered serious injuries in an accident involving the vehicle of the third Respondent which was validly insured with the fourth Respondent. The said Sharad succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident.

(2.) The first Respondent is the widow of the deceased and the second Respondent is his minor daughter. The Appellant is the father of the deceased. The Appellant was impleaded as a third opponent in the claim petition filed by the first and second Respondents. To the claim petition, the Appellant filed a reply and contended that his deceased son was paying him a sum of Rs.1500/- per month. The contention raised in the reply was that as a result of death of his son, he has lost financial support at the old age. By the impugned Judgment and Award, it was held that the deceased died due to negligence on the part of the third Respondent who was driving the vehicle. The claim for compensation made by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 was accepted. The tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,08,800/- inclusive of an amount of Rs.50,000/- paid under the no fault liability with interest thereon at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim application till realisation of the amount. The tribunal denied the compensation to the Appellant on the ground that the Appellant was not the Class-I heir of the deceased within the meaning of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and held that the 1st and 2nd Respondents being Class-I heirs of the deceased are entitled to priority as they are the only legal representatives of the deceased in accordance with the law of inheritance.

(3.) The learned counsel for the Appellant has made extensive submissions. His submission is that the expression "legal representatives" used in the section 166 of the said Act of 1988 or in section 110-A of the said Act of 1939 has a wider connotation which will include not only Class-I heirs of the deceased but also the Appellant father and the brothers and sisters of the deceased. He submitted that an the incorrect view has been taken by the learned Member of the tribunal. He submitted that the compensation could not have been denied to the Appellant.