LAWS(KAR)-2007-7-46

CHAMANSAB IBRAHIMSAB JAMBAGI Vs. PARAPPA NURENDAPPA

Decided On July 11, 2007
CHAMANSAB, IBRAHIMSAB JAMBAGI Appellant
V/S
PARAPPA, NURENDAPPA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the parties.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows: The appellant is the brother of one Mardanbi. On 28-10-1995, Mardanbi after drawing water from a public hand pump, was on her way home when she was hit by a tractor-trailer. She died as a result of the injuries suffered. Mardanbi was aged about 45 years at the time of her death, she was a widow without any children. She was living in the home of the appellant. The appellant claimed that on account of the death of his sister he suffered loss and hardship and claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity), against the driver and the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellant, though it was found that Mardanbi had died on account of the injuries suffered in the accident and which was attributable to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal has held that the appellant was not entitled to claim any compensation as he was not a legal heir of the deceased. The Tribunal reasoned that the deceased was. a married woman, though widowed. And, secondly, held that the appellant could not have been dependant on the purported earnings of Mardanbi, as a coolie, since she herself was dependant on "old age pension" for her survival. It is this which is under challenge in the present appeal.

(3.) The Counsel for the appellant contends: That in terms of Section 166(l)(c) of the Act, an application for compensation arising out of an accident may be made where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. In the present'case the deceased being an issuless widow, who had come to live with the appellant after her husband's death and the appellant being the natural brother of the deceased, the Tribunal was not justified in declaring that the appellant was not a legal heir of the deceased.