Legal representatives of deceased – Scope – Corporate body or Collective entity when may claim compensation as legal representative – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S/s. 166, 168 and 173:

Appellant 1 is a charitable society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960. It runs various institutions as a constituent unit of Catholic Church. Its members after joining the appellant Society renounce the world and are known as ‘Brothers’. Such ‘Brothers’ sever all relations with their natural families and are bound by the constitution of the Society.

One ‘Brother’ of the Society, namely, Alex Chandy Thomas was a Director-cum-Head master of St. Peter High School and he died in a motor accident. The accident was between a Jeep driven by the deceased and a Maruti Gypsy covered by insurance policy issued by the respondent Insurance Company. At the time of death the deceased was aged 34 years and was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 4,190/-. The claim petition was filed before M.A.C.T., by Appellant No. 2 on being duly authorised by the Appellant No.1 the society. The owner of the Gypsy vehicle stated in his written statement that vehicle was duly insured and hence liability, if any, was upon the Insurance Company.

The respondent-Insurance Company also filed a written statement and thereby raised various objections to the claim. But it was clear from the written statement that it never raised the issue that since the deceased was a ‘Brother’ and therefore without any family or heir, the appellant could not file claim petition for want of locus standi. The issue no.1 regarding maintainability of claim petition was not pressed by the respondents. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,52,000/- in favour of the claimant and against the opposite parties with a direction to the insurer to deposit Rs. 2,27,000/- with the Tribunal as Rs. 25,000/- had already been deposited as interim compensation. The Tribunal also permitted interest at the rate of 12% per annum, but from the date of judgment passed in MACT case.

Instead of preferring appeal against the order of the Tribunal, the respondent-Company preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Gauhati High Court and by the impugned order under appeal, the High Court allowed the aforesaid writ petition ex-parte, and held the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal to be invalid and incompetent being in favour of person/persons who according to the High court were not competent to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act.

The Hon’ble Court observed that the issue as to who is a legal representative or its agent is basically an issue of fact and may be decided one way or the other dependent upon the facts of a particular case. But as a legal proposition it is undeniable that a person claiming to be a legal representative has the locus to maintain an application for compensation u/s. 166 of the Act, either directly or through any agent, subject to result of a dispute raised by the other side on this issue.

The Court observed that Tribunal had relied on the decision of FB judgement of Patna High Court in Sudama Devi vs. Jogendra Choudhary AIR 1987 Pat 239 wherein it was held that term `legal representative’ is wide enough to include even “intermeddlers” with the estate of a deceased. Further, the proceeding before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal being summary in nature, unless there is evidence before Claims Tribunal in support of such pleading that the claimant is not a legal representative and therefore the claim petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable, no such plea can be raised at a subsequent stage and that too through a writ petition. Accordingly the order of High Court was set aside.