MONTFORD BROTHERS OF ST. GABRIEL & ANR. versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE & ANR. ETC.

Citation: [2014] 1 S.C.R. 835 · Decided: 28-01-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 1 S.C.R. 835 
MONTFORD BROTHERS OF ST. GABRIEL & ANR. 
A 
v. 
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE & ANR. ETC. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3269-3270 of 2007) 
JANUARY 28, 2014 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJAN GOGOi AND 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988: 
s. 166 - Legal representative - Appellant no. 1 is a 
Catholic Society and its members are called 'Brothers' who 
on joining Society abandon all their worldly rights in favour 
B 
c 
of the Society which includes the insurance claim - One 
'Brother' of the Society died in a motor accident - Claim 
D 
petition by appellant no.1-Society-Tribunal allowed the claim 
petition - On writ petition, High Court set aside order of Tribunal 
on the ground that claimants were not competent to claim 
compensation - Held: The Motor Vehicles Act does not 
define the term •tegal representative" but the Tribunal noted 
E 
in its judgment that clause (CJ of Rule ~ of the Mizoram Motor 
Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 1988, defines the term 'legal 
. representative' as having the same meaning as assigned to 
it in clause (11) of s.2, CPC - As per s.2, CPC, in case of 
death of a person in a motor vehicle accident, right is 
available to a legal representative of the deceased or the 
F 
agent of the legal representative to lodge a claim for 
compensation under the provisions of the Act - Therefore, a 
person claiming to be a legal representative has the locus to 
maintain an application for compensation u/s. 166 of the Act, 
either directly or through any agent, subject to result of a 
G 
dispute raised by the other side on this issue - High Court 
erred in law in setting aside the judgment of the Tribunal by 
ignoring the fact that the respondent-Insurance Company had 
835 
H 
836 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 1 S.C.R. 
A not pressed issue of maintainability before the Tribunal nor 
it had pleaded and led evidence in respect to the said issue 
- Whether or not appellant is legal representative of the 
deceased is an issue of fact which could not be decided by 
the High Court for the first time in a writ petition which could 
B only be entertained under Article 227 of the Constitution for 
limited purpose - The order of the Tribunal is restored -
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 226, 227 - Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908 - s.2(11) - Mizoram Motor Accident Claims 
Tribunal Rules, 1988 - r.2(C) - Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 -
c s.1A. 
Appellant no.1 is a Catholic Society and its members 
are called 'Brothers' who on joining Society abandon all 
their worldly rights in favour of the Society which includes 
the insurance claim. One 'Brother' of the Society died in 
D a motor accident. Appellant no.2 filed a claim petition 
before the MACT on behalf of appellant no.1-Society. The 
Tribunal allowed the claim petition and passed award. The 
respondent-Insurance company instead of filing appeal 
filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court 
E allowed the writ petition on ground that order of tribunal 
was invalid being in favour of person(n) who were not 
competent to claim compensation under the Motor 
Vehicles Act. The review petition was rejected by the High 
Court. 
F 
In the instant appeals, the dispute related to the 
competency of the appellants to claim compensation 
under the Motor Vehicles Act for accidental death of 
'Brother' of the appellant society. The plea of the 
G respondent-Insurance Company was that since the term 
'legal representative' has not been defined under the 
Motor Vehicles Act, the provision of Section 1-A of the 
Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 should be taken as guiding 
principle and the claim should be confined only for the 
H 
MONTFORD BROTHERS OF ST. 'GABRIEL\-. UNITED 837 
INDIA INSURANCE 
benefit of wife, husband, parent and child, if any, of the 
A 
person whose death was caused by the accident. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1. The Motor Vehicles Act does not define the 
term "legal representative" but the Tribunal noted in its 
judgment that clause (C) of Rule 2 of the Mizoram Motor 
Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 1988, defines the term 
'legal representative' as having the same meaning as 
assigned to it in clause (11) of Section 2 of the Code of 
Civil Procedure, 1908. As per Section 2, CPC, in case of C 
death of a person in a motor vehicle accident, right is 
available to a legal;. ·epresentative of the deceased or the 
agent of the legal representative to lodge a claim for 
compensation under the provisions of the Act. The issue
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.