Motor Accidents | Legal Representatives Entitled To Compensation Even If Not Dependents Or Legal Heirs: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that in motor vehicle accidents, the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to compensation even if they are not legal heirs of the deceased. 

Justice Murali Purushothaman added that this rule remains true even if there is no loss of dependence and clarified that the compensation would go to the estate of the deceased. 

"Even if there is no loss of dependency, if the claimant is a legal representative of the deceased, he would be entitled to compensation. The compensation payable goes to the 'estate' of the deceased...The compensation constitutes part of the estate of the deceased and as a result, the legal representative of deceased would inherit the estate even if he was not dependent on the deceased and even if he is not a legal heir."

Krishnankutty died in a motor vehicle accident in 2005 while serving in the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC). The deceased's widow and his children from his divorced wife moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for his death.

The Tribunal held that all the petitioners being legal heirs of the deceased were entitled to compensation. However, since only the widow was found to be a dependent of the deceased, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of around Rs. 26,90,000 to be paid by the insurer in a ratio of 3:1:1.

While the insurance company alleged that the compensation awarded was excessive, the children from the divorced wife were aggrieved by the ratio of apportionment of compensation. Accordingly, they moved the High Court challenging the Tribunal's award.

The Court found that the award of compensation was just and reasonable. In fact, it added that the Tribunal had not considered future prospects while determining the income of the deceased. Upon considering all the heads, the bench decided the total amount of compensation to be Rs.30,89,836. The petitioners were thus entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,00,196. 

Meanwhile, the children from the first wife claimed that the apportionment ratio should have been 1:1:1 since as per the Hindu Succession Act, the wife and sons get a per capita share of the estate of the deceased. 

The Court found that an application for compensation can be made by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased on behalf of or for the benefit of the legal representatives of the deceased. The Tribunal, while making an award, has to specify the person or persons who are entitled to compensation.

Although 'legal representative; is not defined under the Motor Vehicles Act, Section 2(11) of CPC defines it to include heirs as well as persons who represent the estate of the deceased.

"Here, the application for compensation has been made by the legal representatives of the deceased. It is for the Tribunal to specify the person or persons to whom the compensation is to be paid. It is while deciding the entitlement for compensation under Section 168 (1), the Tribunal apportions the compensation among the legal representatives. The Act is silent as to how the apportionment of compensation among the legal representatives has to be made." 

Reliance was placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Birender & Ors to conclude that even if there is no loss of dependency if the claimant is a legal representative of the deceased, he would be entitled to compensation, which goes to the 'estate' of the deceased. 

Thus, the Court rejected the argument that the apportionment should be made as per the Hindu Succession Act and held that it must be done based on the facts and circumstances of each case. 

Further, the ratio of apportionment of compensation fixed by the Tribunal was 3:1:1. The Court held that though the question of dependency cannot be the basis for entitlement of compensation, once the entitlement of the legal representative for compensation is found, dependency can be a basis for apportionment of compensation.

It was observed that the widow of the deceased was aged 47 at the time of the accident and was dependent on the deceased with no future job prospects. Meanwhile, the Tribunal found that the children from his first wife were majors at the time of the accident and not dependent on the deceased. Thus, it was held that they were not entitled to equal shares in the compensation. 

"True, even if there is no loss of dependency, being legal representatives of the deceased, the petitioners 2 and 3 would be entitled to compensation. However, they are not entitled for equal shares."

Considering the loss of dependency suffered by the widow, the age of the children and future job prospects, Justice Muralidharan found the apportionment decided by the Tribunal to be just and reasonable. 

The appeals were accordingly disposed of. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 505

Appearance: Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy for petitioner 1, Senior Advocate Mathews Jacob, Advocate P Jacob Mathew for the insurance company,  Advocates Aysha Abraham, G. Maheshwary, RV Sreejith, Zakeer Husain MK for petitioners 2,3