TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court: Brothers as Legal Representatives Can Claim Compensation under Motor Vehicles Act</h1> <h3>Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad. Versus Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & Another</h3> Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad. Versus Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & Another - 1987 AIR 1690, 1987 SCR (3) 404, 1987 SCC (3) 234, JT 1987 ... Issues Involved:1. Whether a brother of a deceased person can claim compensation u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.2. The applicability of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 in motor vehicle accident claims.3. The interpretation of 'legal representatives' in the context of motor vehicle accident claims.Summary:1. Whether a brother of a deceased person can claim compensation u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939:The Supreme Court examined whether the brother of a deceased person, killed in a motor vehicle accident, is entitled to claim compensation before a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal and the High Court of Gujarat had awarded compensation to the brothers of the deceased. The petitioner contested this, arguing that brothers are not entitled to compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. The Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the brothers, as legal representatives, could maintain the claim u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.2. The applicability of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 in motor vehicle accident claims:The Court discussed the historical context and the evolution of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, comparing it with the English Fatal Accidents Act. The Court noted that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, particularly Chapter VIII, had introduced substantive changes that expanded the scope of claimants beyond those specified in the 1855 Act. The Court observed that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, particularly sections 110-A and 110-B, supersede the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, in the context of motor vehicle accidents, thereby allowing a broader range of legal representatives to claim compensation.3. The interpretation of 'legal representatives' in the context of motor vehicle accident claims:The term 'legal representatives' was crucial in this case. The Court noted that the Motor Vehicles Act does not define 'legal representatives,' but it should be interpreted broadly to include all individuals who represent the estate of the deceased. The Court referred to section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and concluded that the term encompasses more than just the immediate family (spouse, parent, and child) as specified in the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent, as evidenced by the lack of amendment to section 110-A following the Law Commission's recommendations, was to provide a wider interpretation of 'legal representatives.'Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, affirming that the brothers of the deceased, as legal representatives, are entitled to claim compensation under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Court highlighted that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, have substantively modified the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, in relation to motor vehicle accidents, thereby allowing a broader range of claimants.
TaxTMI 