Nathi Singh vs Vimlesh Gupta and Others

N.N. Mithal, J.—Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The only point made out by the Learned Counsel was that u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, no claim could have been awarded to the married daughter as she is not covered by the definition of legal representative of the deceased. His submission was that the whole claim petition was, therefore, not maintainable. Although it may be true that the word ''legal representative'' has not been defined in the Act in some cases it has been held that married daughter who is not dependent upon the deceased cannot claim the amount of compensation. However, this will not render the claim petition itself as improperly constituted. It is evident that claimant No. 1 is the widow of the deceased and she was entitled to compensation. In these circumstances the submission made by the counsel has no merits.

The Learned Counsel next urged that an enquiry is contemplated u/s 92-A and in this case no enquiry has been made by the Claims Tribunal. During the argument, the Learned Counsel admitted that in the pleadings the parties are not at issue on the question that the accident had taken place and the motor cycle in question was involved in the accident. It is also not disputed that one Satya Deo Gupta, husband of claimant No. 1, met his death as a result of the accident which involved the use of the motor cycle in question. In view of the admitted facts, no further enquiry was required to be made by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, I find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.