N LAKSHMI Vs. PICHAIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The interesting question raised in this revision is whether the sisters of a person, who died in a motor accident, can seek impleadment in a petition filed under section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and rule 3 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, by the widow and minor child of the deceased, for seeking compensation from the owner of the motor vehicle and his insurer. One K. Nagarajan died in a motor accident. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 herein, who are the widow and minor son of the deceased, Nagarajan, filed MACTOP No. 796 of 1983 against the owner of the lorry involved in the accident and the insurance company, to claim compensation for the death of Nagarajan. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein, who are the sisters of Nagarajan, filed M. P. No. 2045 of 1983 seeking impleadment on the ground that they were being maintained by the deceased, Nagarajan, and as such they also constitute his dependants and, consequently, they are also interested in the proceedings instituted for getting compensation from the owner and the insurer for the death of Nagarajan. The petitioners herein opposed the impleadment of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. But the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has overruled their objection and ordered impleadment of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The correctness of this order is challenged in this revision.

(2.) For passing an order in favour of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, the Tribunal has placed reliance on a decision of this court in Perumal v. G. Ellusamy Reddiar 1974 (1) MLJ 292 1974 ACJ 182 (Mad). That was a case where a bachelor died in a motor accident leaving behind him as heirs only his sisters and brothers. When the sisters and brothers filed a petition under section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, their claim was resisted by the owner and the insurer on the ground that they are not the legal representatives or heirs and hence they cannot maintain the petition. A Division Bench of this court, consisting of P. S. Kailasam J., as he then was, and N. S. Ramaswami J., considered the matter elaborately and held that the term "legal representative" in section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act will take in all persons covered by the term "representative" occurring in section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act and that the term "representative" occurring in the said Act should be understood as referring to next of kin who were the dependants of the deceased as contemplated under that Act. While N. S. Ramaswami J. went to the extent of saying that the definition of the term "legal representative" in section 2(11) of the Civil Procedure Code would not include all persons who are entitled to apply for compensation under section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act and that rule 2(c) of the Madras Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1961, which provides that the term "legal representative" shall have the meaning assigned to it under clause (11) of section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is ultra vires the rule-making powers of the Government, Kailasam J., as he then was, held that the term "legal representative" can be construed as including all claimants under section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Taking this decision as an authority, the Tribunal has held that respondents Nos. 1 and 2, being the dependent sisters of the deceased, Nagarajan, are entitled to seek impleadment in the petition filed by the petitioners.I am afraid, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. In the very Division Bench decision that has been relied upon, N. S. Ramaswami J., has summed his view in paragraph 48 in the following manner :

(3.) In this context, reference must be made to section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. The relevant portion reads as follows :