MONTFORD BROTHERS OF ST. GABRIEL & ANR.versusUNITED INDIA INSURANCE & ANR. ETC.

                      [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
                                                                   B
        [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJAN GOGOi AND
                 SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.]

      MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988:
                                                                   c
      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
  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

       HELD: 1. The Motor Vehicles Act does not define the
  term "legal representative" but the Tribunal noted in its       B
 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
  as to who is a legal representative or its agent is basically   D
  an issue of fact and may be decided one way or the other
  dependent upon the facts of a particular case. But as a
  legal proposition it is undeniable that a person claiming
  to be a legal representative has the locus to maintain an
  application for compensation under Section 166 of the           E
  Act, either directly or through any agent, subject to result
  of a dispute raised by the other side on this issue. [Paras
· 9, 10) [842-H; 843-A, C-E]

     2. It is only if there is a justification in consonance
                                                                  F
with principles of justice, equity and good conscience, a
dependant of the deceased may be denied right to claim
compensation. Therefore, there is no merit in the plea of
the respondent-Insurance Company that the claim
petition is not maintainable because of the provisions of
the Fatal Accidents Act. [Para 12) [845-C-D)                      G

    3. The proceeding before the Motor Vehicle Claims
Tribunal is a summary proceeding and unless there is
evidence in support of such pleading that the claimant is
not a legal representative and, therefore, the claim petition     H
    838    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A be dismissed as not maintainable, no such plea can be
  raised at a subsequent stage and that also through a writ
  petition. The Tribunal did frame issue regarding
  maintainability of the claim petition on law and fact as issue
  no.1 but the findings recorded by the Tribunal show that
B this issue together with issue nos. 2 and 3 were not
  pressed by the opposite parties during trial and were
  accordingly decided in favour of the claimants. In such
  circumstances, the order under appeal allowing the writ
  petition suffers from apparent mistake in not noticing the
c relevant issue decided by the Tribunal and also the fact
  that the Insurance Company, which was the writ petitioner,
  had not pressed this issue. It had neither raised pleadings
  nor led evidence relevant for the said issue. On coming to
  know about the High Court judgment the appellants filed
  a review petition in which they gave all the relevant facts
0
  inctuding the constitution of the society appellant no.1 in
  support of their claim that a 'Brother' of the Society
  renounced his relations with the natural family and all his
  earnings and belongings including insurance claims
  belonged to the society. These facts could not have been
E ignored by the High Court but even after noticing such
  facts the review petition was rejected. [Paras 13, 14, 15]
  [845-D-H; 846-A-C]

       4. The judgment of the Tribunal disclosed that
F although issue regarding the maintainability of the claim
  petition was not pressed and hence decided in favour of
  the claimants/appellants, while considering the quantum
  of compensation for the claimants, the Tribunal adopted
  a very cautious approach and framed a question for itself
G as to what should be the criterion for assessing
  compensation in such case where the deceased was a
  Roman Catholic and joined the church services after
  denouncing his family, and as such having no actual
  dependants or earning? For answering this issue, the
H
 MONTFORD BROTHERS OF ST. GABRIEL v. UNITED 839
             INDIA INSURANCE
 Tribunal relied not only upon judgments of American and          A
 English Courts but also upon Indian judgments for
 coming to the conclusion that even a religious order or
 organization may suffer considerable loss due to death
 of a voluntary worker. The Tribunal also referred to some
 Indian judgments in whic!l it was held that successors           B
 to the trusteeship and trust property are legal
 representatives within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the
 Code of Civil Procedure. [Para 16) [846-C-H]

       5. The High Court erred in law in setting aside the
  judgment of the Tribunal by ignoring the fact that the          C
  respondent-Insurance Company had not pressed issue
  of maintainability nor it had pleaded and led evidence in
  respect to the said issue. The Court explained that the
  appellants were not the legal representatives of the
  deceased. Such an issue of facts could not be decided           D
. by the High Court for the first time in a writ petition which
  could only be entertained under Article 227 of the
  Constitution for limited purpose. The order of the Tribunal
  is restored. [Paras 17, 18) (847-A-C]
                                                                  E
      Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad
 vs. Raman Bhai Prabhatbhai & Anr. AIR 1987 SC 1690: 1987
 (3) SCR 404 - referred to.

                      Case Law Reference:
                                                                  F
      1987 (3) SCR 404         referred to          Para 11
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
 3269-3270 of 2007.

       From the Judgment and Order dated 20.08.2002 of the        G
  High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura,
, Mizoram, & Arunachal Pradesh, Aizwal Bench: Aizwal in Writ
  Petition No. 20 of 2002.

      Ashwani Kumar, Kuljeet Rawal for the Appellant.             H
         840       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 1 S.C.R.


     A       V.S. Chopra, Manjeet Chawla, K.N. Madhusoodhanan, R.
         Sathish for the Respondents.

               The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           SHIVA KIRTI SINGH,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the
     B appellants and learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance
       Company.

             2. The facts relevant for deciding this appeal are not in
         dispute and hence noted only in brief.
     c       143. The appellant No.1 is a charitable society registered
       under the Societies Registration Act, 1960. It runs various
       institutions as a constituent unit of Catholic Church. It is running
       various orphanages, industrial schools and other social service
       activities besides number of educational schools/institutions. Its
     D members after joining the appellant society renounce the world
       and are known as "Brother". Such a 'Brother' severs his all
       relations with the natural family and is bound by the constitution
       of the society which includes Article 60 quoted in paragraph 3
       of the order dated 10.12.2003 passed in Review Petition No.4
     E of 2002 and in annexure P.5 as such:

               "Whatever the 'Brother' receives by way of salary,
               subsidies, gifts, pension or from insurance or other such
•
II
               benefits belongs to the community as by right and goes
               into the common purse."
     F
              4. Appellant No.2 is Principal of St. Paul's Higher
         Secondary School, Aizawal, Mizoram and represents appellant
         no.1 as well.
     G     5. One 'Brother' of the Society, namely, Alex Chandy
       Thomas was a Director-cum-Head master of St. Peter High
       School and he died in a motor accident on 22.06.1992. The
       accident was between a Jeep driven by the deceased and a
       Maruti Gypsy covered by insurance policy issued by the
     H respondent Insurance Company. At the time of death the
MONTFORD BROTHERS OF ST. GABRIEL v. UNITED 841
   INDIA INSURANCE [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]

deceased was aged 34 years and was drawing monthly salary           A
of Rs.4, 190/-. The claim petition bearing No.55 of 1992 was
filed before M.A.C.T., Aizawal by appellant no.2 on being duly
authorized by the appellant no.1-the society. The owner of the
Gypsy vehicle discussed in his written statement that vehicle
was duly insured and hence liability, if any, was upon the          B
Insurance Company. The respondent-Insurance Company also
filed a written statement and thereby raised various objections
to the claim. But as is clear from the written statement under
Annexure P.2 it never raised the issue that since the deceased
was a 'Brother' and therefore without any family or heir, the       c
appellant could not file claim petition for want of locus standi.
The issue no.1 regarding maintainability of claim petition was
not pressed by the respondents. The Tribunal awarded a
compensation of Rs.2,52,000/- in favour of the claimant and
against the opposite parties with a direction to the insurer to     D
deposit Rs.2,27,000/- with the Tribunal as Rs.25,000/- had
already been deposited as interim compensation. The Tribunal
also permitted interest at the rate of 12% per annum, but from
the date of judgment dated 14.07.1994 passed in MACT case
Nos. 55 and 82 of 1992.
                                                                    E
     6. Instead of preferring appeal against the order of the
Tribunal, the respondent-Company preferred a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Gauhati
High Court an~ by the impugned order under appeal dated
                                                                        •
20.08.2002, the High Court allowed the aforesaid writ petition      F
(C) No~O of 2002 ex-parte, and held the judgment and order
o(the leai:ned Tribunal to be invalid and incompetent being in
favour of person/persons who according to the High court were
not competent to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicle
Act. This was the only ground of challenge to the judgment and      G
Award of the Tribunal. The High Court, however, did not disturb
the Award of Rs.25,000/- already made as interim
compensation. Review Petition preferred by the appellants was
also rejected on 10.12.2003 but after noticing the relevant facts
relating to locus of the appellants.                                H
    842       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A      7. From the facts noted above, it is evident that there is
  no dispute between the parties with regard to the quantum of
  compensation determined by the Tribunal and the only issue
  is whether the High Court was correct in law in holding that the
  appellants are not competent to claim compensation under the
B Motor Vehicle Act for the accidental death of 'Brother'
  belonging to the appellant-society.

       8. The only issue noted above requires to look into Section
  166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to
C as 'The Act'). Sub-section (1) of Section 166 is relevant for the
  purpose. It provides thus:

          "166. Application for compensation:-ill An application for
          compensation arising out of an accident of the nature
          specified in sub- section (1) of section 165 may be
D         made-

          !fil by the person who has sustained the injury; or
          fill by the owner of the property; or
E         .{g where death has resulted from the accident, by all or
          any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or

          .@ by any agent duly authorised by the person inured or
          all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as
          the case may be:
F
                Provided that where all the legal representatives of
          the deceased have not joined in any such application for
          compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of
          or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the
G         deceased and the legal representatives who have not so
          joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the
          application. •

       9. The Act does not define the term "legal representative"
H but the Tribunal has noted in its judgment and order that clause ,
 MONTFORD BROTHERS OF ST. GABRIEL v. UNITED 843
    INDIA INSURANCE [SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.l
 (C) of Rule 2 of the Mizoram Motor Accident Claims Tribunal            A
 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, which is as follows:

             "Section 2(11 )'Legal representative' means a              B
       person who in law represents the estate of a deceased
       person and includes any person who intermeddles with the
       estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued
       in a representative character the person on whom the
       estate devolves On the death of the party so suing or sued".     C

       10. From the aforesaid provisions it is clear that in case
  of death of a person in a motor vehicle accident, right is
  available to a legal representative of the deceased or the agent
  of the legal representative to lodge a claim for compensation
  under the provisions of the Act. The issue as to who is a legal       D
  representative or its agent is basically an issue of fact and may
  be decided one way or the other dependent upon the facts of
  a particular case. But as a legal proposition it is undeniable
  that a person claming to be a legal representative has the locus
  to maintain an application for compensation under Section 166         E_
  of the Act, either directly or through any agent, subject to result
· of a dispute raised by the other side on this issue.

     11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company tried to
persuade us that since the term 'legal representative' has not
been defined under the Act, the provision of Section 1-A of the         F
Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, should be taken as guiding principle
and the claim should be confined only for the benefit of wife,
husband, parent and child, if any, of the person whose death
has been caused by the accident. In this context, he cited
judgment of this Court in the case of Gujarat State Road                G
 Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. Raman Bhai
Prabhatbhai & Anr. 1• In that case, covered by the Motor
Vehicles Act of 1939, the claimant was a brother of a deceased

 1.   AIR 1987 SC 1690.                                                 H
    844     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014) 1 S.C.R.


A killed in a motor vehicle accident. The Court rejected the
  contention of the appellant that since the term 'legal
  representative' is not defined under the Motor Vehicles Act, the
  right of filing the claim should be controlled by the provisions
  of Fatal Accident Act. It was specifically held that Motor
B Vehicles Act creates new and enlarged right for filing an
  application for compensation and such right cannot be hedged
  in by the limitations on an action under the Fatal Accidents Act.
  Paragraph 11 of the report reflects the correct philosophy which
  should guide the courts interpreting legal provisions of
C beneficial legislations providing for compensation to those who
  had suffered loss.

         "11. We feel that the view taken by the Gujarat High Court
         is in consonance with the principles of justice, equity and
         good conscience having regard to the conditions of the
D        Indian society. 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 110-A to
         110-F of the Act. These provisions are in consonance with
E        the principles of law of torts that every injury must have a
         remedy. It is for the Motor Vehicles Accidents Tribunal to
         determine the compensation which appears to it to be just
         as provided in Section 110-B of the Act and to specify the
         person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid.
F       The determination of the compensation payable and its
        apportionment as required by Section 110-B of the Act
        amongst the legal representatives for whose benefit an
        application may be filed under Section 110-A of the Act
        have to be done in accordance with well-known principles
G       of law. We should remember that in an Indian family
        brothers, sisters and brothers' children and some times
        foster children live together and they are dependent upon
        the bread-winner of the family and if the bread-winner is
        killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, there is no
H       justification to deny them compensation relying upon the
 MONTFORD BROTHERS OF ST. GABRIEL v. UNITED 845
    INDIA INSURANCE [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]
      provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which as we A
      have already held has been substantially modified by the
      provisions contained in the Act in relation to cases arising •
      out of motor vehicles accidents. We express our approval
      of the decision in Megjibhai Khimji Vira v. Chaturbhai
      Taljabhai, {AIR 1977 Guj.195) and hold that the brother of B
      a person who dies in a motor vehicle accident is entitled
      to maintain a petition under Section 110-A of the Act if he
      is a legal representative of the deceased."

       12. From the aforesaid quoted extract it is evident that only
 if there is a justification in consonance with principles of justice,   C
 equity and good conscience, a dependant of the deceased
 may be denied right to claim compensation. Hence, we find no
 merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the respondent-
 Insurance Company that the claim petition is not maintainable
 because of the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act.                   D

        13. On behalf of the appellants it has been rightly contended
  that proceeding before the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal is a
  summary proceeding and unless there is evidence in support
  of such pleading that the claimant is not a legal representative       E
  and therefore the claim petition be dismissed as not
  maintainable, no such plea can be raised at a subsequent stage
  and that also through a writ petition. The objection filed on behalf
  of the Insurance Company, contained in annexure P.2, does not
· raise any such objection nor there is any evidence led on this         F
  issue. As noted earlier, the Tribunal did frame any issue
  regarding maintainability of the claim petition on law and fact
  as issue no.1 but the findings recorded by the Tribunal at page
  41 of the paper book show that this issue together with issue
  nos. 2 and 3 were not pressed by the opposite parties during
                                                                         G
  trial and were accordingly decided in favour of the claimants.
      14. In the aforesaid circumstances, the order under appeal
 dated 20.8.2002 allowing the writ petition suffers from apparent
 mistake in not noticing the relevant issue decided by the
 Tribunal and also the fact that the Insurance Company, which            H
    846     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2014) 1 S.C.R.

A was the writ petitioner, had not pressed this issue. It had neither
  raised pleadings nor led evidence relevant for the said issue.

        15. On coming to know about the High Court judgment the
  appellants filed a review petition in which they gave all the
B relevant facts including the constitution of the society appellant
  no.1 in support of their claim that a 'Brother' of the Society
  renounced his relations with the natural family and all his
  earnings and belongings including insurance claims belonged
  to the society. These facts could not have been ignored by the
  High Court but even after noticing such facts the review petition
C was rejected.

        16. A perusal of the judgment and order of the Tribunal
   discloses that although issue no.1 was not pressed and hence
   decided in favour of the claimants/appellants, while considering
D the quantum of compensation for the claimants the Tribunal
   adopted a very cautious approach and framed a question for
   itself as to what should be the criterion for assessing
   compensation in such case where the deceased was a Roman
   Catholic and joined the church services after denouncing his
f family, and as such having no actual deoenaants or earning?
   For answering this issue the Tribunal relied not only upon
  jucigments of American and English Courts but also upon Indian
  judgments for coming to the conclusion that even a religious
  order or organization may suffer considerable loss due to death
F of a voluntary worker. The Tribunal also went on to decide who
  should be entitled for compensation as legal representative of
  the deceased and for that purpose it relied upon the Full Bench
  jL•rtgment of Patna High Court reported in AIR 1987 Pat. 239,
  which held that the term 'legal representative' is wide enough
G to include even "intermeddlers" with the estate of a deceased.
  The Tribunal also referred to some Indian judgments in which
  •twas held that successors to the trusteeship and trust property
  are legal representatives within the meaning of Section 2(11)
  of the Code of Civil Procedure.

H
 MONTFO'RD BROTHERS OF ST. GABRIEL v. UNITED 847
    INDIA INSURANCE [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]
        17. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, we have no     A
· hesitation in holding that the High Court erred in law in setting
  aside the judgment of the learned Tribunal by ignoring the fact
  that the respondent-Insurance Company had not pressed issue
  no.1 nor it had pleaded and led evidence in respect to the said
  issue. The Court explained that the appellants were the legal       B
  representatives of the deceased. Such an issue of facts could
  not be decided by the High Court for the first time in a writ
  petition which could only be entertained under Article 227 of
  the Constitution for limited purpose.

      18. Accordingly, orders of the High Court dated August 20,      C
 2002 and December 10, 2003 are set aside and the judgment
 and order of the Tribunal dated July 14, 1994, is restored. The
 dues of compensation including interest, as per judgment of the
 Tribunal, shall be deposited by the respondent-Insurance
 Company with the Tribunal within eight weeks from the date of        D
 this order. The Tribunal shall permit the claimants to withdraw
 the same in the light of its order.
     19: The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above.
 No costs.                                                            E
 D.G.                                           Appeals allowed.