LEKSHMI Vs. CHAIRMAN K S R T C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THAT the provisions of law conferring rights on parties are of no consequence to those who have no means to avail themselves of the benefit of such law is more than evident from the facts of the case before us. A Harijan lady who lost her husband in an accident on 19-3-1978 petitioned to the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation for payment of compensation due on account of the death of her husband. It was a bus belonging to the Corporation that caused the accident resulting in the death of the petitioner's husband and another person. She laments in the petition that only a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was paid to her, that she had to leave her house at the Harijan Colony, Pulimathu and take shelter in somebody-else's house and that she has no means to resort to a court or a tribunal or pay fees to counsel.

(2.) IT is further mentioned that two years prior to the date of her petition the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation offered to pay her Rs. 10,000/- but that would only be on production of succession certificate from court. She is unable to move a court and get succession certificate for the reason that she has no money to pay fee for moving the court or to meet the expenses for such proceedings. She has produced a certificate from the Panchayat President, but according to her a succession certificate from a court was insisted upon. She is aware that had she approached the Tribunal appointed to try claims for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act she may get a much higher sum, but even the amount of Rs. 10,000/- she is now unable to get. So she has petitioned to this Court by a letter that some orders may be passed enabling her to get the amount.

(3.) THE assumption that a succession certificate is necessary for payment of compensation to the dependants of a person who dies on account of accident is evidently not correct. In two decisions of this Court in State Insurance Officer v. Thankamma (1980 KLT. 562) the scheme of the Indian Fatal Accidents Act has been adverted to. Evidently that enactment is brought into existence to enable dependants of a person whose death has been caused by wrongful act, neglect or default to claim compensation. But for that Act there would be no case for the heirs of a deceased to claim compensation on account of death caused by wrongful act. It is to meet this situation Fatal Accidents Act has been enacted. It enables the dependants, namely the wife, husband, parent and child of the person whose death has been caused, to claim loss resulting to them from such death. Had the deceased lived his normal span of life he would have been of benefit to the dependants. That benefit they have lost by the reason of the death and it is to compensate them for loss of such benefits that provisions in S.1-A has been made. THE estate would lose on the death of such person only if after meeting the expenses for himself and his dependants there would have been surplus in his hands. Such accumulated surplus would have been available on his death. In that event it would have passed on to his heirs as part of his estate. What would be inherited by his estate is entirely different from what would have been obtained by the dependants during his life time. S.2 of the Fatal Accidents Act provides for the claim by the estate of any pecuniary loss to the estate. It is hence evident that a claim under S.1-A, namely a claim by the dependants, is not as legal representatives of the deceased, but on their own account. It is compensation for loss caused to them by the death of the deceased secured to them as a statutory right under S.1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act. If so there is no question of any succession being relied on in respect of such claim. A succession certificate can be sought only where on the death of the person the right devolves on the applicant as a legal representative. That being riot the case here the dependants are entitled to make the claim on their own account. THErefore, there is no question of producing any succession certificate.