Author
The author of this article is Merline Mathew, a final year B.A, LL.B.(Hons) student of Bharata Mata School Of Legal Studies Choondy, Aluva. She is currently an Editor Trainee at LJRF Voice.
INTRODUCTION
A report of World Bank issued in 2021 disclosed a shocking data that with only 1 percent of the world’s vehicles, India accounts for 11 percent of the global death in road accidents1. Every year lakhs of Indians die in road accidents and some get a narrow escape only to suffer from injuries and pain for the rest of their life. Most families lose their only breadwinner and is therefore left to desolation. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation enacted by the Government of India which provides compensation to victims of road accidents. As per Sec 166, in case of the death of a person in accident, the legal representatives can approach the claims tribunal seeking compensation. Hence a question that has come before the Supreme Court time and again is the issue of clarifying the term ‘legal representative’. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has frequented the question over years the latest one being in the case of N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. The bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari on October 25, 2021 held that mother-in-law dependent on deceased is a legal representative for the purpose of maintaining a claim petition under Sec 166 of Motor Vehicles Act and is entitled to compensation.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The appellants in the present case filed a claim petition before the MACT, Kottayam seeking compensation on account of the death of N. Venugopalan Nair, the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred in 2011. Appellants no.1, 2, and 3 are his wife and daughters respectively. Appellant no.4 is his mother-in-law. The MACT awarded a total sum of Rs.74,50,971/- towards compensation with interest @ 7.5 percent per annum. However, on appeal, while reducing the compensation to a sum of Rs.48,39,728/-, the High Court held that appellant no.4 was not a legal representative of the deceased and also held that the
MACT ought to have assessed the dependency compensation by applying the split multiplier method.
Impugned by the judgment of the High Court of Kerala, the claimants preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court which came for consideration before the bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari as N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd.
LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED
1. Whether the High Court was justified in precluding the mother-in-law of the deceased (appellant no.4) as his legal representative?
2. Whether the High Court was justified in applying a split multiplier?
3. What is the amount of compensation that should be awarded to the appellants?
DECISION
The Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that the term ‘legal representative’ should be given a wider interpretation for the purpose of Chapter XII of MV Act and it should not be confined only to mean the spouse, parents and children of the deceased2. Accordingly based on facts of the case the Court held that mother -in -law of the deceased is a “legal representative” under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and is entitled to maintain a claim petition3.Further, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in applying split multiplier4 in the present case and enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.85,81,815/-5.
ANALYSIS
There were some notable observations by the Apex court in the present case with respect to compensation granted to the legal representative of a deceased in a motor accident claim. The primary issue for consideration of the court was whether the mother-in-law of the deceased can be included as a legal representative. For this Court went on to examine the meaning of the term legal representative and scrutinized the definition given in the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 19896. The Apex Court was of the opinion that the term ‘legal representative’ should be given a wider interpretation for the purpose of Chapter XII of MV Act and it should not be confined only to mean the spouse, parents and children of the deceased7.
The Court also observed that the MV Act being in the nature of a beneficial legislation necessitates a liberal and wider interpretation8. The Court while holding that mother -in – law of the deceased is a “legal representative” under Section 166 of the Act was also of the view that in order to maintain a claim petition, it is sufficient for the claimant to establish his/her loss of dependency9.
CONCLUSION
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the present case considered the complexities of Indian families while deciding the question of whether mother-in-law is a legal representative. In many Indian families there are old and destitute parents who depend on and live with their daughters and hence indirectly are dependent on son in law. Hence while answering the issue in positive the Court has given a wide and liberal interpretation to the benevolent legislation thereby making it serve it’s real purpose.
Reference
1 Accessed in https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/india-accounts-for-11-per-cent of-global-death-in-road-accidents-world-bank/article33834556.ece(28/10/2021 at 9pm)
2 LL 2021 SC 588, ¶14
3 ibid, ¶ 21
4 ibid ¶28
5ibid ¶35
6 Accessed in http://kmvdgoacircular.com/upload/KMVR.pdf (28/10/2021 at 9pm) 7 Supra note i
8 ibid¶ 16
9 Supra note ii
