Whether major sons of deceased who are gainfully employed or earning can claim compensation under Motor vehicles Act?

The legal representatives of the deceased could move application for compensation by virtue of Clause (c) of Section 166(1). The major married son who is also earning and not fully dependant on the deceased, would be still covered by the expression "legal representative" of the deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera (supra) had expounded that liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the concerned legal representative. Notably, the expression "legal representative" has not been defined in the Act. In Manjuri Bera (supra), the Court observed thus: {Para 14}

9. In terms of Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 166 of the Act in case of death, all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased become entitled to compensation and any such legal representative can file a claim petition. The proviso to said Sub-section makes the position clear that where all the legal representatives had not joined, then application can be made on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased by impleading those legal representatives as Respondents. Therefore, the High Court was justified in its view that the Appellant could maintain a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Act.

11. According to Section 2(11) Code of Civil Procedure, "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. Almost in similar terms is the definition of legal representative under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 i.e. Under Section 2(1)(g).

12. As observed by this Court in Custodian of Branches of BANCO National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique [MANU/SC/0149/1989 : 1989 Supp (2) SCC 275 the definition contained in Section 2(11) Code of Civil Procedure is inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is not confined to legal heirs only. Instead it stipulates that a person who may or may not be legal heir competent to inherit the property of the deceased can represent the estate of the deceased person. It includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate even without title either as executors or administrators in possession of the estate of the deceased. All such persons would be covered by the expression "legal representative". As observed in Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai [MANU/SC/0469/1987 : (1987) 3 SCC 234 a legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child.

In paragraph 15 of the said decision, while adverting to the provisions of Section 140 of the Act, the Court observed that even if there is no loss of dependency, the claimant, if he was a legal representative, will be entitled to compensation. In the concurring judgment of Justice S.H. Kapadia, as His Lordship then was, it is observed that there is distinction between "right to apply for compensation" and "entitlement to compensation". The compensation constitutes part of the estate of the deceased. As a result, the legal representative of the deceased would inherit the estate. Indeed, in that case, the Court was dealing with the case of a married daughter of the deceased and the efficacy of Section 140 of the Act. Nevertheless, the principle underlying the exposition in this decision would clearly come to the aid of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (claimants) even though they are major sons of the deceased and also earning.

15. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. 

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 242-243 of 2020 

Decided On: 13.01.2020

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.

Author:A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

Citation: Citation: 2020 INSC 34, MANU/SC/0028/2020,AIR 2020 SC 434.

Print Page

Whether major Girl is free to choose partner for marriage irrespective partner’s criminal records?

There is no dispute about the fact that the expression of interest shown by the detenue is to have a marital tie with the first respondent. It is true that parental authority can be exercised by the parents while their son or daughter remains as a minor. But the moment they become major, the exercise of parental authority gets limited. Becoming a major gives them the authority to exercise all their rights as a citizen and once they attain the age of marriage, they can choose their partner. The choice may not be to the liking of the parents. He/she may opt for a criminal or a convict, a person of different religion, caste, colour, language or even decide not to marry at all. The parental authority in such instances are of a limited nature. In the social scenario involved in our country, the parents have a say in all matters and loving children do accept their wishes and act in accordance with their opinion and advice. But that is only a wishful thinking of the parents and those parents who could make their children act in accordance with their reasonable wishes can only be termed as a fortunate lot, a God given gift. This Court in Lal Parameswar's case(supra) has exercised an extra ordinary jurisdiction stretching the limits of habeas corpus in respect of a major girl in a situation where the custody was with the parents.

8. In this case, of course, the learned counsel for the petitioners had a contention that the detenue was abducted by respondents 1 and 2 and a police case is pending. But when she had informed us that she had voluntarily left with the first respondent, we do not think that it is possible for us to assume, atleast in this proceeding that she was illegally detained. True that they were not married, and now that the notice period had already expired, it is open for them to solemnize their marriage whenever they wish. We do not want to express any opinion in regard to the pending criminal case against the 1st respondent and others.

Therefore, when a major girl exercises her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India by choosing her partner, Court cannot resist such expression of opinion. True that the decision is pitted against the wish of the parents, but, when a fundamental right is being exercised by a major girl, the Court will have to enforce the same.

In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

(Before A.M Shaffique and Anu Sivaraman, JJ.)

T.M Shareef v. Abdulla K.B 

W.P(Crl) No. 213 of 2017

Decided on July 24, 2017

Citation:2017 SCC OnLine Ker 10186

Print Page

Whether major daughter is entitled to get maintenance from her father till her Marriage?

  As regards the second petitioner is concerned, the

observation made by the court below that she did not pursue

her claim for maintenance after she became major appears to

be not correct, because, she filed the vakalath after she attained

majority and that was overlooked by the court below. Further,

it is settled law that as regards the female children are


concerned, they are entitled to get maintenance till their

marriage unless it is proved that she is having independent

income to maintain herself after she attained majority. No such

evidence was adduced in this case. She had pursued her claim

for maintenance by filing this revision also.     So, under the

circumstances, the finding of the court below that she did not

pursue her claim for maintenance and as such she is not entitled

to get maintenance is also not correct. So, the petitioners are

entitled to get the maintenance from the respondent and he is

liable to pay maintenance to them as well.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                         PRESENT:

                        MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

              7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015

                          R.P.(F.C.)No. 323 of 2014 ()
                                                
                                               

         SHEELA, Vs ALBERT HEMSON @ JAMES, A

Citation;2015(3) Crimes 697 Kerala 

Print Page