SHAIK LALBI Vs. M BALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. N. Subba rao, learned counsel representing the appellants and Mrs. A. Malathi, the learned counsel representing respondent No. 2.

(2.) MR. N. Subba Rao, learned counsel representing the appellants would maintain that the order made by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Guntur-cum-Second additional District Judge, Guntur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for the purpose of convenience) is contrary to the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter 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 trans. Corpn. v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, 1987 ACJ 561 (SC) 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 no fault liability and negativing the relief cannot be sustained. Counsel also relied upon certain decisions to substantiate his submissions.

(3.) ON the contrary learned counsel Mrs. A. Malathi, representing respondent No. 2 would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the light of the decisions in Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2007 ACJ 1279 (SC) and Hafizun Begum v. Md. Ikram Heque, 2007 (1) Decision Today (SC)645, the scope and ambit of the expression 'legal representative' in a way had been broadened as far as no fault liability is concerned.