MRS. HAFIZUN BEGUM versus MD. IKRAM HEQUE & ORS.

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 487 · Decided: 24-07-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

... ( 
" ....-
MRS. HAFIZUN BEGUM 
A 
v. 
MD. IKRAM HEQUE & ORS. 
JULY 24, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
B 
" 
--4, 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166: 
Motor Accident-Death-Claim Petition-Legal heirs not dependent c 
on deceased-Ellfitlement to-Held: All or any of the legal representatives 
of the deceased became entitled to claim compensation and could file a claim 
petition in connection thereof in terms of provisions under Section 166(/ )(c) 
of the Act-Liability does not cease because of absence of dependency-
Since the basic issue has not been elaborate(v dealt with by the High Court, 
" 
the matter is remitted to the High Court for decision afresh-Code of civil D 
)· 
Procedure, 1908; s. 2(11)-Arbitartion and Conciliation Act, 1996-s. 2(l)(g). 
The question which arose for determination in this appeal was as to 
whether the legal representatives/legal heir, not dependent on the deceased 
are entitled to claim compensation under the provisions of Motor Vehicles 
Act, 1988. 
E 
Appellant, wife of the deceased, contended that the brothers of the 
deceased were not dependent on the deceased, therefore, they had no right to 
file a claim petition; and that the widow of a Muslim who has no issue is entitled , 
to get one fourth share in the property of the deceased-husband and remaining 
.( 
part would go to the brothers. 
F 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In terms of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 166 of 
the Motor Vehicles Act in case of death, all or any of the legal representatives 
of the deceased become entitled to compensation and any such legal G 
representative can file a claim petition. The proviso to said sub-section makes 
-I 
the position clear that where all the legal representatives had not joined, then 
application can be made on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased 
487 
H 
488 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 8 S.C.R. 
A by impleading those legal representatives as respondents. 
(Para 811490-H; 491-AJ ·-
1.2. The Tribunal has a duty to make an award, determine the amount 
of compensation which is just and proper and specify the person or persons 
to whom such compensation would be paid. The latter part relates to the 
B entitlement of compensation by a person who claims for the same. (Para IOI 
1.3. According to Section 2(11) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, "legal 
representative"means a person who, in law, represents the estate of a deceased 
person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the 
C deceased and where a party sues or is suedina representative character, the 
person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. 
Almost in similar terms is the definition of legal representative as defined 
u/s. 2(l)(g) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act; 1996. 
D 
[Para 111 (491-H; 492-AI 
Custodian of Branches of BANCO National Ultramarino v. Na/inf.Bai 
Naique, AIR (1989) SC 1589 and Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 
v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Anr., AIR (1987) SC 1690, relied on. 
1.4. The liability under Section 140 of the Act does not cease because 
there is absence of dependency. The right to file a claim application has to be 
E considered in the background of right to entitlement. (Para 13) (492-D] 
F 
1.5. There are three stages while assessing the question of entitlement. 
Firstly, the liability of the person who is liable and the person who is to 
indemnify the liability, ff any. Next is the quantification and Section 166 is 
primarily in the nature of recovery proceedings. [Para 131 (492-E) 
2. Since the basic issue has not been elaborately dealt with by the High 
Court, the matter is remitted to the High Court to decide it afresh in the light 
of the decision of this Court in the case of Manjuri Bera v. The Oriental 
Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., (Para 161 (492-G) 
G 
Smt. Manjuri Bera v. The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd. and Anr., JT (2007) 
5 SC 78, relied on. 
• 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3216 of2007. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 27.06.2005 of the High Court of 
H Gauhati at Gautlati in MAC Appeal No. 155 of 2005. 
" 
I 
\ ,, 
j.. 
' 
' 
t
r 
HAFIZUM BEGUM v.lKRAM HEQUE [PASAYAT, J.} 
489 
,.. :r 
Rana Mukherjee, Azim H. Laskar, Anand and Abhijit Sengupta for the A. 
Appellant. 
Pravir Choudhary for the Responder.t. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. 1. Leave granted.· 
" 
2. An interesting question has been r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.