In the circumstances, it would be necessary to examine, whether the claimants are entitled to compensation as legal representatives not dependent on the deceased or as dependents entitled to compensation. It is obvious that the deceased A. Ebenezer was an orphan studying in the school living with the Orphanage maintained by the Trust. The loss of dependency and loss of estate are two different aspects. It is unrealistic to expect the Manager of the Trust as a dependent of the deceased A. Ebenezer, similarly, the paternal aunt who had not played any role during the lifetime of the deceased. It is clear that to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Act, the claimants must fall within the ambit of legal representative' as interpreted in the various Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. As per the judgments referred to supra, 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. Even if there is no loss of dependency, the claimant if he or she is a legal representative is entitled to compensation, towards loss of estate, the loss of financial contribution made to the claimant is the loss of dependency, the loss of savings by the deceased is the loss of estate. As discussed above, the question of loss of dependency would not arise in the present case. In view of the same, the claimants being not proved to be the dependent legal representatives, are entitled to loss of estate. Loss of estate to be computed as per the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in A. MANAVALAGAN's case (supra), the savings taken as 15% of the income. The annual notional income has to be reckoned at Rs. 30,000/- based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of KISHAN GOPAL's case (supra). The appropriate multiplier would be 15 as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RESHMA KUMARI & OTHERS v. MADAN MOHAN & ANOTHER' reported in MANU/SC/0287/2013 : 2013 ACJ 1253. Thus, the loss of estate works to Rs. 67,500/- (Rs. 30,000/- x 15% x 15). The claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. Hence, the claimants shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 92,500/- as against Rs. 2,25,000/-. The award amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of the deposit provided the claimants shall establish in law as legal representatives of the deceased since the person who may or may not be a legal heir competent to inherit to the property of the deceased can represent the estate of the deceased person which 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 as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'CUSTODIAN OF BRANCHES OF BANCO NATIONALULTRAMARINO v. NALINI BAI NAIQUE' reported in MANU/SC/0149/1989 : 1989 (2) SCR 810. The observations made by the Tribunal that the claimants have to approach the competent court and get the succession certificate to claim the award amount of deceased A. Ebenezer is justifiable.
{Para 21}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.F.A. Nos. 534/2012, 533/2012, 4066/2012 and 4065/2012 [MV]
Decided On: 18.11.2016
Jacob Vs. The Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C. Depot.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram: S. Sujatha, J.
Citation: MANU/KA/2933/2016.
Print Page
