DEWAN HARI CHAND Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This claim for compensation is by way of an application under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (the Act), made by Dewan Hari Chand, who is the father of the deceased, Man Mohan, who was . 8 years when he was killed in an accident on 27th January, 1962. The death was due to the negligence of the driver of the D.T.U. bus No. DLP 720. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal acting under sections 110-A to 110-F of the said Act gave an award of Rs. 2,1501- as compensation payable to the father. In an appeal against the said decision under section 110-D by the father of the deceased, the compensation payable to the father was enhanced by the learned single Judge of this court to Rs. 11,250,.00. Against that decision L.P.A. 124 of 1972 has been filed by Hari Chand, while cross-objections have been filed by the Delhi Transport Corporation.

(2.) Dewan Hari Chand had joined his three sons as applicants, but the learned single Judge pointed out that the application could be made only by the legal representatives under section 110-A(l)(b) of the Act. Under the Hindu Succession Act, the father was in the first category in the second class of heirs while brothers were in category below him and thus were excluded by him. The case of the brothers of the deceased is, however, relevant in a different context. The case of the applicants was that the deceased was a member of an Undivided Hindu family and was carrying on business of photography as a family business. Since the business belonged to the family as a whole, the income from the business also belonged to the family as a whole. Even though, therefore, the brothers of the deceased were not his legal representatives and were not, therefore, entitled to make an application under section 110-A, they were entitled to an equal share of the income from the family business. This will have to be borne in mind in finding out the amount of the dependency of the father when compensation is to be calculated as due to him for the death of his son, Man Mohan.

(3.) Mr. Rajni Kant for the Delhi Transport Corporation has submitted that the present case being typical of numerous claims for compensation which are filed against the Corporation, the respondent is interested in this court laying down the guidelines for the determination of compensation payable to the victims of motor accidents, so that the Corporation may bear them in mind, firstly in settling such claims even without litigation and secondly in defending litigation which ensues from such claims. We would, therefore, consider the following questions of law which arise in this case.