CLARA Vs. YASODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main dispute that arises in the appeal for consideration is whether the appellants herein, who are additional respondents 5 & 6 in the claim petition before the MACT, are the wife and son respectively or whether respondents 1 to 3 herein, who were claim petitioners before the MACT, are the wife and children respectively of the deceased Y. Philipose. The said Mr. Philipose died in a motor accident on 14/07/1990. The appellants herein, namely the wife and son respectively of the deceased, filed claim petition and total compensation of Rs.1,45,600/- was awarded by the MACT in OP (MV) No. 782/92. However, when respondents 1 to 3 filed another claim petition, namely OP (MV) No. 719/92, the Insurance Company was not aware of the earlier award granting compensation for the death of the very same person in favour of the appellants. The case of the Insurance Company is that even though counsel was entrusted with the matter and counter was also prepared and handed over to him, he did not appear and consequently an ex parte award was passed in favour of respondents 1 to 3. However, when the company faced execution proceedings pursuant to the ex parte award, it came to the notice of the Company that another award was obtained by the appellants earlier for the death of the very same person and therefore, the Company approached the MACT for setting aside the ex parte award and for deciding heirship for the purpose of award of compensation. It is seen that the MACT has impleaded appellants as additional respondents, took evidence and came to the conclusion that respondents 1 to 3, who are claimants in the OP (MV) No. 719/92, are the legally wedded wife and children of the deceased and therefore the compensation is awarded in their favour after holding that appellants have not established any relationship with the deceased. It is against this award this appeal is filed.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned standing counsel appearing for the Insurance Company and learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

(3.) The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is the jurisdiction of the MACT in deciding as to who among the contending parties is the legal representative eligible for the compensation. Even though learned counsel for the Insurance Company objected raising of this ground as appellants did not chose to contest it before the MACT, we feel, since it is a pure legal question, we should decide the matter more so for the sake of guidance for future cases. Obviously, the power of the MACT has to be considered with reference to the statutory provisions under which applications for compensation is maintainable. The question of identity arises only in cases of claim for compensation for death of a person. S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorises parties to make application for compensation for injury as well as for death. In the case of injury, the victim himself or herself will be the applicant and probably in the case of minors their guardian will represent. However, in the case of death, clause 166(1)(c) authorises filing of application for compensation by any of the legal representatives of the deceased.