Partly allowed

Sushil Kumar Srivastav and Another v. Mahendra Pal Singh and Another

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2021FAFO/3355/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court allowed the appeal partly. It held that the claim does not abate merely due to the death of the mother before the son's death. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to decide only the quantum of compensation.

What did the court decide?

The matter remanded to the Tribunal to decide the quantum of compensation; other issues already decided in favour of appellants.

Sushil Kumar Srivastav and Another Vs Mahendra Pal… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3355 of 2003

¶3

Appellant :- Sushil Kumar Srivastav And Another Respondent :- Mahendra Pal Singh And Another Counsel for Appellant :- D.B. Yadav,R.C. Maurya

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.

¶5

Sri Azaz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the respondent remain present. This appeal is of the year 2003 challenging the judgement and award of the court below whereby the Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 332 of 1998 has been dismissed on the ground that on the death of the mother of the unmarried son, the claim petition would stand abated.

¶6

Brief facts as culled out from the memo of the appeal and record are that one Puspha Devi lost her son in an accident which is not in dispute and for which she along-with one another son of her preferred claim petition. During pendency of the claim petition which is numbered as 332 of 1998 Puspha Devi passed away. While deciding the petition the Tribunal framed three issues. First two issues were held in favour of present appellants namely that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of vehicle owned and driven by the opponent claimant, insured with Insurance Company herein. Issue no. 2 were also held in favour of the appellants. As far as issue no. 3 is concerned the Tribunal gave an elaborate reasoning and dismissed the claim petition holding that the mother had been died the cause of action would not survived. As per Section 110 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the accident had occurred in 1997 when the new Act had already come into the force. The provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act read as follows:

¶7

" does not specify legal heir but the term is legal representative and therefore Chapter XI partakes within it laudable object to ensure that third party, who suffered because of accident will be compensated, even if financial condition of the driver or the owner, who caused the accident, was not sound."

¶8

Meaning of Term Legal Representative:

¶9

"The term legal representative has not been defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 or 1988 Act. The 2019 Amendment also does not define the term legal representative. Certain

¶10

provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Tirbunals and higher Courts have interpreted the term legal representative so as to give purposive interpretation to the said definition. "

¶11

Thus the findings of the fact are upturned. The finding been perverse then the brothers are not legal representatives and his mother had died, the claim would again is bad in eye of law. The fact that mother oh her death the right would devolved, thus the brothers will stepped into the footsteps of legal heir of the mother and would also be legal representative.

¶12

Thus in view of all above, this appeal will have to be allowed.

¶13

The matter be decided only on quantum as other issues are already decided in favour of claimants. The only issue remained is of quantum. We would have ourselves decided the same but as the learned counsel for appellants has absented himself, we are persuaded by Shri Khan to remand the matter back.

¶14

The appeal is partly allowed.

¶15

We remand the matter back to the Tribunal who shall decide the matter on or before 31.05.2022. It is made clear that the Tribunal will decide only the case of compensation as other issues are already been decided. issue on quantum for legal representative. As we said this matter is of motor vehicle act.

¶16

We are thankful to Sri Khan, learned counsel who has ably assisted us.

¶17

Order Date :- 15.12.2021 PS

Sushil Kumar Srivastav and Another v. Mahendra Pal Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar Srivastav and Another v. Mahendra Pal Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Jasveer Kaur and Anr. Vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Anr.

Kiran Rai and 5 Others Vs National Insurance Company Limited and 2 Others

Brijendra Singh and Another Vs Sunil Rai and Another

Eeda Khan Vs State of U.P.

Akanksha Baranwal Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Vishal Gupta Vs Director I.G.F.R.I. and Others