UNION OF INDIA Vs. GOLENDRA MOSHAHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sailendra Moshahari met with an accident on 20.11.1989 when his motor cycle hit with the army vehicle and as a result of the injury sustained he succumbed to the injuries. Brother of Sailendra Moshahari has filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kamrup at Guwahati. After recording the evidence the Tribunal has recorded the finding that the accident took place on account of negligence and careless driving of the driver of the army vehicle; that at the relevant lime the deceased was employed as clerk under the United Bank of India, Jowai Branch and was drawing salary of Rs. 1,508.92. The Tribunal further found that when the evidence was recorded before the Tribunal the salary of the deceased would have been Rs. 6,300.58 with usual increments and revision of pay. At the time of the death Sailendra Moshahari was aged about 23 years and was in the service of the bank for 4 months only. Taking the future prospects of the permanent employee the court has held that the gross income can be safely assumed to be Rs. 5,000. Giving deduction of 1/3rd for his personal expenses the Claims Tribunal has found that he must be spending Rs. 3,334 on his dependant and taking into account the age of deceased the Tribunal applied multiplier of 17. The Claims Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 6,86,136 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum with effect from 3.5.1990, i.e., the date of filing of the claim petition. The compensation amount includes the expenses incurred towards performing the religious rites and meeting the incidental costs.

(2.) Aggrieved by the award of compensation given by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kamrup, Guwahati in M.A.C. Case No. 142 of 1990 the present appeal is filed by the Union of India. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that it is clear from the statement of Golendra Moshahari, brother of the deceased that he has filed the petition for and on behalf of his father Soniram Moshahari and thus the compensation could have been awarded considering the age of the father and not the age of the deceased as the dependency of his father which has to be compensated. We find substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant.

(3.) In Gujarat State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, 1987 ACJ 561 (SC), the Apex Court has stated that the expression 'legal representative' has not been defined in the Act. However, a legal representative ordinarily means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person or a person on whom the estate devolves on the death of an individual. It provides that the application for compensation shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased. Section 110-A (1) expressly states that an application for compensation may be made by the legal representative of the deceased or by their agent, and (ii) that such application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives. It is further stated in para 12 of the judgment that it has been observed that we should remember that in an Indian family brothers, sisters and brothers' children and sometimes the foster children live together and they are dependent upon the breadwinner of the family and if the breadwinner is killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, there is no justification to deny them compensation relying upon the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855.