Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

    CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3269-3270 OF 2007

 MONTFORD BROTHERS OF   ST. GABRIEL & ANR.     ... APPELLANTS

VS.

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE & ANR. ETC.  ... RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned  

counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company.

Page 2

2. The facts relevant for deciding this appeal are not  in dispute and hence noted only in brief.

3. The  appellant  No.1  is  a  charitable  society  registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960.  

It runs various institutions as a constituent unit of  

Catholic  Church.  It  is  running  various  orphanages,  

industrial schools and other social service activities  

besides  number  of  educational  schools/institutions.  

Its  members  after  joining  the  appellant  society  

renounce the world and are known as “Brother”.  Such a  

`Brother’  severs  his  all  relations  with  the  natural  

family and is bound by the constitution of the society  

which includes Article 60 quoted in paragraph 3 of the  

order dated 10.12.2003 passed in Review Petition No.4  

of 2002 and in annexure P.5 as such:

“Whatever the `Brother’ receives by way of  salary,  subsidies,  gifts,  pension  or  from  insurance or other such benefits belongs to  the community as by right and goes into the  common purse.”

2

Page 3

4. Appellant No.2 is Principal of St. Paul’s Higher  Secondary  School,  Aizawal,  Mizoram  and  represents  

appellant no.1 as well.

5. 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 on 22.06.1992.  

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  

bearing  No.55  of  1992  was  filed  before  M.A.C.T.,  

Aizawal by appellant no.2 on being duly authorized by  

the appellant no.1-the society.  The owner of the Gypsy  

vehicle discussed 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 as is  

3

Page 4

clear from the written statement under Annexure P.2 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 dated 14.07.1994  

passed in MACT case Nos. 55 and 82 of 1992.

6. 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 dated 20.08.2002,  the High Court allowed  

4

Page 5

the aforesaid writ petition (C) No.20 of 2002 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.  This was the only ground of challenge to the  

judgment and Award of the Tribunal. The High Court,  

however,  did  not  disturb  the  Award  of  Rs.25,000/-  

already made as interim compensation. Review Petition  

preferred  by  the  appellants  was  also  rejected  on  

10.12.2003  but  after  noticing  the  relevant  facts  

relating to locus of the appellants.

7. From  the  facts  noted  above,  it  is  evident  that  there is no dispute between the parties with regard to  

the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal  

and  the  only  issue  is  whether  the  High  Court  was  

correct in law in holding that the appellants are not  

competent to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicle  

5

Page 6

Act for the accidental death of `Brother’ belonging to  

the appellant-society.

8. The only issue noted above requires to look into  Section  166  of  the  Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1988,  

(hereinafter referred to as `The Act’).  Sub-section  

(1) of Section 166 is relevant for the purpose.  It  

provides thus:

“166.  Application  for  compensation:-(1) An  application for compensation arising out of an  accident of the nature specified in sub- section  (1) of section 165 may be made—

(a) by the person who has sustained the injury;  or  

(b) by the owner of the property; or  

(c) where death has resulted from the accident,  by all or any of the legal representatives of  the deceased; or  

(d) by any agent duly authorised by the person  inured  or  all  or  any  of  the  legal  representatives of the deceased, as the case  may be:   

Provided  that  where  all  the  legal  representatives of the deceased have not joined in  any  such  application  for  compensation,  the  application shall be made on behalf of or for the  benefit of all the legal representatives of the  

6

Page 7

deceased  and  the  legal  representatives  who  have  not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents  to the application. “

9. The  Act  does  not  define  the  term  “legal  representative”  but  the  Tribunal  has  noted  in  its  

judgment and order that clause (C) of Rule 2 of the  

Mizoram  Motor  Accident  Claims  Tribunal  Rules,  1988,  

defines the term `legal representative’ as having the  

same  meaning  as  assigned  to  it  in  clause  (11)  of  

Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which  

is as follows:

“Section  2(11)`Legal  representative’  means  a  person  who  in  law  represents  the  estate  of  a  deceased  person  and  includes  any  person  who  intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and  where a party sues or is sued in a representative  character the person on whom the estate devolves On  the death of the party so suing or sued”.

10. From the aforesaid provisions it is clear that in  case of death of a person in a motor vehicle accident,  

right is available to a legal representative of the  

deceased or the agent of the legal representative to  

7

Page 8

lodge a claim for compensation under the provisions of  

the Act.  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  claming  to  be  a  legal  

representative has the locus to maintain an application  

for compensation under Section 166 of the Act, either  

directly or through any agent, subject to result of a  

dispute raised by the other side on this issue.

11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company tried to  persuade us that since the term `legal representative’  

has not been defined under the Act, the provision of  

Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, should be  

taken  as  guiding  principle  and  the  claim  should  be  

confined only for the benefit of wife, husband, parent  

and child, if any, of the person whose death has been  

caused  by the  accident.  In this  context, he  cited  

judgment of this Court in the case of  Gujarat State  

8

Page 9

Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad vs.  Raman Bhai  Prabhatbhai  &  Anr.  1  .   In  that  case,  covered  by  the  Motor Vehicles Act of 1939, the claimant was a brother  

of a deceased killed in a motor vehicle accident.  The  

Court  rejected  the  contention  of  the  appellant  that  

since the term `legal representative’ is not defined  

under the Motor Vehicles Act, the right of filing the  

claim should be controlled by the provisions of Fatal  

Accident  Act.   It  was  specifically  held  that  Motor  

Vehicles Act creates new and enlarged right for filing  

an application for compensation and such right cannot  

be hedged in by the limitations on an action under the  

Fatal  Accidents  Act.   Paragraph  11  of  the  report  

reflects the correct philosophy which should guide the  

courts  interpreting  legal  provisions  of  beneficial  

legislations providing for compensation to those who  

had suffered loss.

“11. We feel that the view taken by the Gujarat  High Court is in consonance with the principles of  justice, equity and good conscience having regard  to  the  conditions  of  the  Indian  society.  Every  

1  AIR 1987 SC 1690

9

Page 10

legal representative who suffers on account of the  death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident  should  have  a  remedy  for  realisation  of  compensation and that is provided by Sections 110-A  to  110-F  of  the  Act.  These  provisions  are  in  consonance with the principles of law of torts that  every injury must have a remedy. It is for the  Motor Vehicles Accidents Tribunal to determine the  compensation  which  appears  to  it  to  be  just  as  provided in Section 110-B of the Act and to specify  the person or persons to whom compensation shall be  paid. The determination of the compensation payable  and its apportionment as required by Section 110-B  of the Act amongst the legal representatives for  whose  benefit  an  application  may  be  filed  under  Section  110-A  of  the  Act  have  to  be  done  in  accordance with well-known principles of law. We  should remember that in an Indian family brothers,  sisters  and  brothers’  children  and  some  times  foster  children  live  together  and  they  are  dependent upon the bread-winner of the family and  if the bread-winner 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  which  as  we  have  already held has been substantially modified by the  provisions  contained  in  the  Act  in  relation  to  cases arising out of motor vehicles accidents. We  express our approval of the decision in  Megjibhai  Khimji  Vira v.  Chaturbhai  Taljabhai,  (AIR  1977  Guj.195) and hold that the brother of a person who  dies in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to  maintain a petition under Section 110-A of the Act  if he is a legal representative of the deceased.”

10

Page 11

12. From  the  aforesaid  quoted  extract  it  is  evident  that only if there is a justification in consonance  

with principles of justice, equity and good conscience,  

a  dependant  of  the  deceased  may  be  denied  right  to  

claim compensation.  Hence, we find no merit in the  

submission  advanced  on  behalf  of  the  respondent-

Insurance  Company  that  the  claim  petition  is  not  

maintainable  because  of  the  provisions  of  the  Fatal  

Accidents Act.

13. On behalf of the appellants it has been rightly  contended  that  proceeding  before  the  Motor  Vehicle  

Claims  Tribunal  is  a  summary  proceeding  and  unless  

there is evidence in support of such pleading that the  

claimant is not a legal representative and therefore  

the claim petition be dismissed as not maintainable, no  

such plea can be raised at a subsequent stage and that  

also through a writ petition.  The objection filed on  

behalf of the Insurance Company, contained in annexure  

P.2, does not raise any such objection nor there is any  

11

Page 12

evidence  led  on  this  issue.   As  noted  earlier,  the  

Tribunal did frame any issue regarding maintainability  

of the claim petition on law and fact as issue no.1 but  

the findings recorded by the Tribunal at page 41 of the  

paper book show that this issue together with issue  

nos. 2 and 3 were not pressed by the opposite parties  

during trial and were accordingly decided in favour of  

the claimants.

14. In  the  aforesaid  circumstances,  the  order  under  appeal  dated  20.8.2002  allowing  the  writ  petition  

suffers  from  apparent  mistake  in  not  noticing  the  

relevant issue decided by the Tribunal and also the  

fact that the Insurance Company, which was the writ  

petitioner, had not pressed this issue. It had neither  

raised pleadings nor led evidence relevant for the said  

issue.  

15. On coming to know about the High Court judgment the  appellants filed a review petition in which they gave  

12

Page 13

all the relevant facts including the constitution of  

the society appellant no.1 in support of their claim  

that a `Brother’ of the Society renounced his relations  

with  the  natural  family  and  all  his  earnings  and  

belongings including insurance claims belonged to the  

society. These facts could not have been ignored by the  

High  Court  but  even  after  noticing  such  facts  the  

review petition was rejected.  

16. A perusal of the judgment and order of the Tribunal  discloses that although issue no.1 was not pressed and  

hence decided in favour of the claimants/appellants,  

while considering the quantum of compensation for the  

claimants the Tribunal adopted a very cautious approach  

and framed a question for itself as to what should be  

the criterion for assessing compensation in such  case  

where the deceased was a Roman Catholic and joined the  

church  services  after  denouncing  his  family,  and  as  

such  having  no  actual  dependants  or  earning?  For  

answering this issue the Tribunal relied not only upon  

13

Page 14

judgments of American and English Courts but also upon  

Indian judgments for coming to the conclusion that even  

a  religious  order  or  organization  may  suffer  

considerable loss due to death of a voluntary worker.  

The  Tribunal  also  went  on  to  decide  who  should  be  

entitled for compensation as legal representative of  

the deceased and for that purpose it relied upon the  

Full Bench judgment of Patna High Court reported in AIR  

1987  Pat.  239,  which  held  that  the  term  `legal  

representative’  is  wide  enough  to  include  even  

“intermeddlers” with the estate of a deceased.  The  

Tribunal  also  referred  to  some  Indian  judgments  in  

which it was held that successors to the trusteeship  

and trust property are legal representatives within the  

meaning  of  Section  2(11)  of  the  Code  of  Civil  

Procedure.

17. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, we have  no hesitation in holding that the High Court erred in  

law  in  setting  aside  the  judgment  of  the  learned  

14

Page 15

Tribunal  by  ignoring  the  fact  that  the  respondent-

Insurance Company had not pressed issue no.1 nor it had  

pleaded and led evidence in respect to the said issue.  

The Court explained that the appellants were the legal  

representatives  of  the  deceased.   Such  an  issue  of  

facts could not be decided by the High Court for the  

first  time  in  a  writ  petition  which  could  only  be  

entertained under Article 227 of the Constitution for  

limited purpose.   

18. Accordingly, orders of the High Court dated August  20, 2002 and December 10, 2003 are set aside and the  

judgment and order of the Tribunal dated July 14, 1994,  

is  restored.   The  dues  of  compensation  including  

interest, as per judgment of the Tribunal, shall be  

deposited by the respondent-Insurance Company with the  

Tribunal  within  eight  weeks  from  the  date  of  this  

order.   The  Tribunal  shall  permit  the  claimants  to  

withdraw the same in the light of its order.

15

Page 16

19. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated  above. No costs.

     ……………………………………………C.J.I.   (P. SATHASIVAM)

…………………………………………………J.  (RANJAN GOGOI)

…………………………………………………J.  (SHIVA KIRTI SINGH)

New Delhi, January 28,2014.

16