SHAIK LALBI Vs. M BALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri N. Subba Rao, learned counsel representing the appellants and smt. A. Malathi, learned counsel representing second respondent.

(2.) SRI N. Subba Rao, learned counsel representing the appellants would maintain that the order made by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, guntur-cum II Additional District Judge, Guntur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for the purpose of convenience) is contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act (herein after referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience ). Learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that as per Section 166 of the Act, the legal representatives of the deceased would be entitled to make an application for award of compensation. The counsel would also submit that clear view had been expressed by the Apex court in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, and in the light of view expressed, the brothers and sisters of the deceased also would be entitled to claim compensation. Learned counsel also further explained the scope and ambit of section 140 of the Act and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellants-claimants are entitled to the no fault liability and negativing the relief cannot be sustained. The counsel also relied upon certain decisions to substantiate his submissions.

(3.) ON the contrary learned counsel Smt. A. Malathi, representing second respondent would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the light of the decisions in Smt. Manjuri Bera Vs. The Oriental insurance Company Ltd and Mrs. Hafizun Begum Vs. Md. Ikram Heque the scope and ambit of the expression 'legal representatives' in a way had been broadened asfaras no fault liability is concerned.