UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. NARENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 17.03.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby, claim petition filed by the claimants was allowed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the claimants are the married sons and daughter of deceased Shyam Sundar. Married sons and daughter of the deceased cannot be said to be dependents of the deceased. Hence, the claimants were only entitled to receive compensation in terms of no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manjuri Bera Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another 2007 DNJ (SC) 3211, wherein, it was held as under-

(3.) An appeal was filed before the Calcutta High Court questioning the correctness of the Tribunal's view. The High Court by the impugned judgment held that the appeal was without merit and dismissed the same. It was held that though a married daughter can be covered by the expression legal representative appearing in Section 166 of the Act, she was not entitled to any compensation unless he or she was dependent on the deceased. The expression legal representative has not been defined either in the Act or the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (in short the 'Rules'). The widest meaning, therefore, can be ascribed to it in terms of Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC').