Introduction and context of the case
The present case is related to the compensation to be awarded to the brothers of the deceased who was a victim in a motor vehicle accident. The case helps us understand as to who can be an heir and legal representative who is entitled to claim compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act and Motor Vehicles Act.
The understanding before this case was that only a wife, husband, parent and child could be a legal representative who was entitled to seek remedy for the loss of the individual.
In an Indian family, brothers, sisters, and brothers’ children, as well as sometimes foster children, live together and are dependent upon the bread-winner of the family. There is no justification to deny them compensation based on the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, which have been significantly modified by the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act in relation to cases arising in India. This case appreciated the Indian scenario and took into account the factual matrix and created a precedent in such a manner that the case law can be used for times to come and benefit be given to all those who are affected by the death of any individual.
The case also highlights some precedence of one Act over the other in respect of certain provisions which have been brought to light in the further course in this Assignment.
Facts of the case
The instant case arises out of the death of a 14 year old wherein he was run down by a bus of the appellant causing his death. The brothers of the deceased brought an action before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal representing themselves as his heirs and legal representatives. After hearing the case, the tribunal awarded a compensation of Rupees Thirty Two Thousand (Rs. 32,000/-) as compensation.
An Appeal was preferred against the said order to the High Court under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. The High Court dismissed the said Appeal with the view that the brothers were not entitled to compensation placing reliance on the Fatal Accidents Act which would prevail over the Motor Vehicles Act (Chapter VIII) as its nature was merely procedural.
The present petition was filed as an SLP before the Supreme Court.
Issues of law / fact before the court
The issue at hand in this case is whether the brother of a victim of a fatal motor vehicle accident is eligible to file a claim for compensation in a case brought before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which was formed in accordance with the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In this case, the Gujarat High Court upheld such a claim. The validity of the aforementioned judgement is contested in this Special Leave Petition filed in opposition to the High Court’s ruling.
Decision of the court
In the instant SLP, the court was of the opinion that:
1. If a pedestrian is hurt or killed by a driver, whether negligently or not, he or his legal representatives, as the case may be, should be allowed to claim damages if the principle of social justice is to have any meaning at all.
2. Legal representatives of victims who had perished as a result of motor vehicle accidents have received some limited remedy under Section 92A. Without demonstrating any carelessness on the side of the vehicle owner or any other individual, compensation of Rs. 15,000 may be requested. This section of the Act plainly departs from the common law rule that a claimant must prove the owner or driver of the motor vehicle was negligent before requesting compensation for a fatality or permanent disability brought on by a motor vehicle accident. The substantive law remains amended to that extent.
3. If he is the deceased’s legal representative, the brother of the person killed in a car accident is allowed to maintain a petition under Section 110A of the Act.
4. The Act’s Sections 110A to 110F provide that every legal representation who suffers as a result of a person’s death as a result of a motor vehicle accident has a recourse for receiving compensation. These clauses adhere to the tort law’s fundamental tenet that every injury requires a remedy. The Motor Vehicles Accidents Tribunal is responsible for deciding whether the compensation is in accordance with Section 110B of the Act and for identifying the individual or persons to whom it will be paid.According to established legal principles, the amount of compensation due must be determined, and it must be divided among the legal representatives for whose benefit an application may be submitted under Section 110A of the Act, as required by Section 110B of the Act.
5. While the Fatal Accidents Act of 1855 stipulates that a lawsuit must be brought on behalf of the decedent’s spouse, husband, parent, and child, Section 110A(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 states that the application must be brought on behalf of or for the benefit of the decedent’s legal representatives.
6. Sections 110A and 110B deal with who can make such an application and how the compensation awarded can be distributed amongst those who can make such an application, and to that extent the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act supersede the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, insofar as motor vehicle accidents are concerned.
7. The case of MegjibhaiKhimji Vira and Anr. v. Chaturbhai Taljabhai and Ors.[1],which was referred to in this case was affirmed due to the decision made by the court in the instant case.
Analysis of the decision
The court very aptly widened the scope of “legal representatives”. The widening of the term which included not only the close relatives of the person like parents, children, husband and wife but included those persons who are dependents on the individual bread-earner of the family.
The principles enunciated in the instant case is very similar to a welfare legislation or a social legislation which has been made for the welfare of the larger public. This case of the Supreme Court has made it a strong precedent for all the lower courts and High Court to provide remedy to all those persons who are affected by the death of any individual.
It is commendable that the precedent, in this case, shall serve as an effective remedy for any beneficiary/dependent who loses the individual who is providing him with effective benefits and will provide compensation to all those who are affected by the death such persons.
The case, being against the Gujarat State Transport Corporation, has also shown that merely because the entity is an instrumentality of the State or is owned and controlled by the State, it cannot escape liability to compensate the affected parties for any actions which arise by the vicarious liability of the workers of such a State-owned and controlled entity.
Conclusion
The case deals with the main question asto whether brothers can be legal representatives and can claim compensation as regards the Fatal Accidents Act and the Motor Vehicles Act. The court affirming the judgments of the lower court and the cases placed on record opined that the compensation awarded is rightful. The court further pointed that, in case of any accident, there can be a compensation of Rupees Fifteen Thousand (Rs. 15000/-) claimed by the legal representatives without having to show the carelessness or negligence of the driver.
[1]AIR 1977 Gujarat 195
