AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellant filed MVC No.981/2015 before the First Addl. Small Causes Court and MACT, Bangalore claiming compensation for the death of one Inderchand Ranka in the motor accident. On 18.09.2014 at 7.p.m. when Inderchand Ranka was crossing the road near Cholarapalya junction, bus bearing registration No.KA-11-7303 hit him and caused his death. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending bus.
The appellant contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and that Inderchand Ranka was his grand father and he is his dependant. He contended Inderchand Ranka was working as chief finance Officer in Bentlely & Remington Private Limited and earning Rs.84,000/- p.m. and claimed compensation of Rs.20 Lakhs towards loss of dependency, funeral expenses etc.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 contested the matter denying rashness and negligence on the part of the driver in driving the bus and maintainability of petitions. They contended that Inderchand Ranka himself was negligent in crossing the road and accident occurred due to his negligence. They denied occupation and income of the deceased and that the appellant is his relative and dependent. The 2nd respondent- Insurer denied issuance of the policy and its validity. It further contended that its liability, if any is subject to the valid and effective driving licence of the driver, fitness certificate and permit of the vehicle etc.
On appellant''s side PWs 1 & 2 are examined and Exs. P.1 to P.23 are marked and on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2 are examined and Exs.R.1 to R.3 are marked.
The Tribunal after hearing the parties dismissed the petition on the following grounds:
(1) Appellant is not the legal representative of the deceased, therefore has no right to file the petition.
(2) The petition is bad for non-joinder of the legal heirs of the deceased shown in Ex.P.18 - the Pedigree;
(3) The appellant has suppressed the material facts and claimed the deceased to be his grandfather.
The appellant himself admitted in his oral evidence and Ex.P.18 - the Pedigree that deceased Inderchand Ranka was his paternal grandfather''s younger brother. In Ex.P.9 - the Pan Card of the deceased his date of birth is shown as 28-12-1942. Therefore, as on the date of the accident, the deceased was about 72 years old. As on the date of the petition, the appellant is shown as 30 years old. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, firstly, the appellant does not become the legal representative of the deceased as contemplated in Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Schedule I and II of the Hindu Succession Act. Ex.P.18 shows that the deceased has not left behind him any Class-I heirs. The appellant''s father is still alive. He becomes the Class-II heir as per entry (iv) in the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act read with Section 8. Therefore, during his lifetime, the appellant does not even become the Class-II heir.
This Court in MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC vs VENKATARAMAPPA & ORS. (ILR 2002(1) Kar.887) has held that if there are no Class-I heirs, then Class-II heirs can maintain the petition. Therefore, when the appellant''s father who is a Class-II heir is alive, appellant does not become a legal heir.
Though it was contended that the deceased has executed a will as at Ex.P.17 - (a Xerox copy), the appellant did not prove the same by producing the original will or examining any attesting witnesses. Even as per the said will, the deceased was residing with appellant''s father and the bequeath is in favour of other legatees also. Therefore, the alleged will does not in any way advance the case of the appellant to contend that he is the legal representative or the dependant of the deceased.
The Hon''ble Supreme Court in RESHMA KUMARI AND OTHERS vs MADAN MOHAN AND ANOTHER (2013 (9) SCC 65) and in MUNNALAL JAIN AND ANOTHER vs VIPIN KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS (2015 AIR SCW 3105), referring to its earlier Judgment in SARLA VERMA (SMT) & OTHERS vs DELHI TRANSPORT COPORATION & ANOTHER ((2009) 6 SCC 121) has held that in the absence of evidence to the contrary brothers and sisters of the deceased will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married or dependent on their father. The appellant has not placed any acceptable evidence to show that he was dependent on the deceased. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, it is not a fit case to admit. Therefore Appeal dismissed.