CHUNI DEI Vs. KALANDI CHARAN NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed at the instance of the claimant -appellants.

(2.) THE claimants are the daughters of one Lambu Bewa, who died in a motor vehicle accident. It is alleged that the accident was caused due to the negligent driving of the driver of the Mini bus bearing registration No. ADJ 6224. The claimants field claim application claiming Rs. 50,000/ - as compensation. The owner of the vehicle did not appear in spite of service of notice. The Insurance Company however appeared and filed written statement challenging the allegations made in the claim petition. Though initially, some dispute/was raised by the Insurance Company relating to Insurance Policy, in course of trial the said point was given up.

(3.) IN the present appeal which has been filed at the instance of the claimants, there is no appearance on behalf of the owner in spite of service of notice. The Insurance Company has however, entered appearance through its lawyer. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that the Tribunal has completely ignored the evidence on record to the effect that the two claimants were the dependants upon the deceased. On perusal of the evidence on record, it appears that P.W. 1 in fact has stated that the claimants were dependants. However, in my opinion, it is unnecessary to delve into this question as the two daughters being the legal representatives of the deceased can claim compensation due to death of their mother caused by the tortious action of the driver of the vehicle. This view gains support from the decisions reported in AIR 1996 Orissa 32 (Kumudini Das and Ors. v. Rajat Kumar Baliar Singh and Anr.) and AIR 1987 SC 1690 (Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Anr.). Therefore, I am unable to agree with the finding of the Tribunal that the claimants being married daughters and not being dependants were not entitled to compensation. So far as the question of existence of son or grandson is concerned, it appears that there was no issue to that effect nor any pleading. It seems that the Tribunal has come to the said conclusion merely on the basis of the averments made in the FIR which had been lodged by one Krushna Chandra Samal, S/o. Ananta Samal. Of course, in the said FIR it is described that the said informant was carrying her grandmother (BUDINA), Lembu Bewa, on a cycle. Merely from the said FIR it could not have been assumed that in fact the said informant was the grandson of the deceased. The observation of the Tribunal that the son of the deceased was also living appears to be based on misreading of the FIR, as in the FIR itself the informant has been described as the son of late Ananta Samal. However, it is unnecessary to decide the question as to whether the deceased had left behind any other legal heir. It is made clear that the amount to be paid as compensation is to be paid to all the legal heirs of the deceased, Lambu Bewa, including the two appellants, subject to the appellants producing proper legal heir certificate. It is made further clear that if there is any other heir, the amount payable by virtue of this judgment shall be equally apportioned among all the heirs according to their entitlement under the Hindu Succession Act.