Refusing to accept the contention that the apportionment of compensation as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 shall be as per the Hindu Succession Act, and highlighting that the apportionment of compensation shall be made depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, the Kerala High Court held that the legal representative need not be a legal heir, and since the entitlement of compensation under the 1988 Act is for the legal representatives, the Law of Succession cannot be followed as a thumb rule for apportionment of compensation between the legal representatives.

The High Court referred to the decision of the Apex Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Birender and others [AIR 2020 SC 434] to reiterate that compensation constitutes part of the estate of deceased and as a result, the legal representative of deceased would inherit the estate even if he was not dependent on the deceased and even if he is not a legal heir.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman observed that “Though the question of dependency cannot be the basis for entitlement of compensation, once the entitlement of the legal representative for compensation is found, dependency can be a basis for apportionment of compensation”.

Senior Advocate Mathews Jacob appeared for the Appellant, whereas Advocate Aysha Abraham appeared for the Respondents.

The brief facts of the case were that the petitioners are the legal heirs of one Krishnankutty who died in a motor vehicle accident. The deceased was in the service of the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) at the time of the accident. The first petitioner claims that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased and second & third petitioners are the children of the deceased. According to the petitioners, while the deceased was travelling, a lorry owned by the first respondent, driven by second respondent, and insured with the third respondent, hit against the car causing fatal injuries to him and he succumbed to the injuries. The MACT after considering the marriage Certificate and legal heirship certificate, held that the first petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased and other petitioners are the children of the deceased in his divorced wife and being the legal heirs, they are entitled to claim compensation.

After considering the submission, the Bench observed that the application for compensation can be made by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the Tribunal, while making an award, must specify the person or persons who are entitled for compensation.

The Bench stated that the term "legal representative" is not defined under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereas Section 2(11) of CPC defines "legal representative" to mean a 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.

The Bench went on to elaborate that Rule 2 (k) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 defines ''legal representative'' to mean a person who in law is entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased if he had left any estate at the time of his death and also includes any legal heir of the deceased and the executor or administrator of the estate of the deceased.

“It thus includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate of the deceased. Here, the application for compensation has been made by the legal representatives of the deceased. It is for the Tribunal to specify the person or persons to whom the compensation is to be paid. It is while deciding the entitlement for compensation under Section 168 (1), the Tribunal apportions the compensation among the legal representatives”, added the Bench.

Accordingly, the Bench clarified that the 1988 Act is silent as to how the apportionment of compensation among the legal representatives must be made.

The High Court found that in terms of Section 168(1) of the Act, the Tribunal has specified the person to whom the compensation shall be paid, which includes all the three petitioners who are the legal representatives of the deceased, and the ratio of apportionment of compensation has been fixed by the Tribunal as 3:1:1.

“The 1st petitioner, the widow of the deceased was aged 47 at the time of the accident and was dependent on the deceased. She had no future job prospects. The Tribunal found that the petitioners 2 and 3 were majors at the time of accident and were not dependent on the deceased and the said finding is not challenged. True, even if there is no loss of dependency, being legal representatives of the deceased, the petitioners 2 and 3 would be entitled to compensation. However, they are not entitled for equal shares”, added the Court.

Therefore, taking into consideration the loss of dependency suffered by the first petitioner, the age of the petitioners and future job prospects, the High Court found the apportionment of compensation in the ratio 3:1:1 by the Tribunal as just and reasonable.

The High Court thus directed the third respondent insurer to pay the enhanced compensation of Rs. 400,196/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the petition till date of deposit with proportionate costs.

Cause Title: Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company v. V.S Sujatha and Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2023: KER: 53748]

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Kerala High CourtJustice Murali Purushothaman

Pankaj Bajpai