GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, AHMEDABAD. versus RAMANBHAI PRABHATBHAI & ANOTHER

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 404 · Decided: 11-05-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, 
AHMED ABAD. 
v. 
RAMANBHAI PRABHATBHAI & ANOTHER 
MAY 11, 1987 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Section llOA-'Legal represen-
tatives'-Who are-Not to be confined to spouse, parent and children of 
the deceased. 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Section 2 (ii)-'Legal representa-
tive'-Who is. 
Words and Phrases-'Legal representative'-Meaning of 
The respondents-brothers of the deceased-instituted a petition 
before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles 
Act, 1939, claiming compensation for the death of their brother in an 
accident on the ground that they were the heirs and legal represents-
'1 
lives of the deceased. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of 
E Rs.32,000 to the claimants, and directed the Gujarat State Road Trans-
port Corporation to pay the said amount to the claimants. The appeal of 
the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation under Section UOD of 
the Act was dismissed by the High Court. 
In the special leave petition to this Court it was contended that the 
F 
Tribunal and the High Court were in error in awarding compensation 
in favour of the brothers of the deceased, since in law they were not 
entitled to any compensation under the provisions of the Fatal Acci-
dents Act, 1855, and it was submitted that the provisions in Chapter 
VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 were merely procedural in charac-
ter under which an alternative forum is created for deciding the ques-
G 
lion of compensation payable in respect of injuries and death caused on 
account of motor vehicles accidents, that they have not modified in any 
manner the substantive law governing the said question, and, therefore, 
the principles contained in the law of torts as modified by the Fatal 
Accidents Act, 1855, alone would govern the said question even now. 
H 
Dismissing the special leave petition, this Court 
404 
·--';,-- _____ __.,,,,_   
--
--
y 
G.S.R.T.C. ._ RAMANBHAI 
405 
HELD: 1. Where a pedestrian, without negligence on his part, is 
A 
injured or killed by a motorist whether negligently or not, he or his 
legal representatives, as the case may be, shoUld be entitled to recover dama-
ges if the principle of socialjustiee should have any meaning at all. [416C] 
2. To a limited extent relief has been granted under Section 92A 
to the legal representatives of the victims who had died on account of 
B 
motor vehicle accidents. Compensation of Rs.15,000 can be claimed 
without proof of any negligence on the part of the owner of the vehicle 
or of any other person. This part of the Act is clearly a departure from 
the usual common law principle that a claimant should establish negli-
gence on the part of the owner or driver of the motor vehicle before 
claiming any compensation for the death or permanent disablement 
caused on account of a motor vehicle accident. To that extent the sub-
stantive law stands modified. [416H, 417A-B] 
3. The brother of the person who dies in a motor vehicle accident 
is entitled to maintain a petition under Section l lOA of the Act if he is a 
c 
·legal representative of the deceased. [422C] 
D 
4. Every 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 HOA to 
HOF of the Act. These provisions are in consonance with the principles 
of law of torts that every injury ~ust have remedy. It is for the Motor 
E 
Vehicles Accidents Tribunal to determine tbe compensation which 
appears to it to be just as provided in Section HOB 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 HOB of the Act amongst the legal representa-
tives for whose benefit an application may be filed under Section HOA 
F 
of the Act have to be done in accordance with well-known principles of 
law. [421F-H, 422A] 
S.l Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section HOA of the Act 
provided that the application for compensation arising out of an accident 
may be made where death has resulted from the accident by all or any 
G 
~ of the legal representatives of the deceased. The proviso to sub-section 
(1) of Section HOA provides that where all the legal representatives of 
the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, 
the application shall be made
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.