Telangana High Court
Voleti Oleti Sridevi vs Muktha Prabhakar on 23 June, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.186 OF 2024
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned counsel Sri V.M.Ramakrishna Reddy for the
appellant/petitioner No.1 and Sri. Krishna Kishore Kovvuri, learned
counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6/petitioner Nos.4 to 6.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner
No.1 aggrieved by the award passed by the Chairman, Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ranga
Reddy District (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.222 of 2020,
dated 20.11.2023.
3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed
before the Tribunal.
4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under:
5. On 20.03.2020 at about 5.40 p.m., while the deceased viz.,
Suresh Kumar, was proceeding from Punjagutta towards
Basheerbagh on his TVS XL motorcycle bearing registration No.TS-
09-EQ-6782 and when he reached near Ravindra Bharathi signal, a
car bearing registration No.AP-10-BH-1719 (hereinafter referred to as
‘crime vehicle’) came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner
LNA,J
MACMA No.186 of 2024
2
and dashed the motor cycle, due to which deceased received
grievous injuries. Immediately, he was admitted in Global Hospital,
where he succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment on the
next day i.e., 21.03.2020.
5.1. That the Police, Saifabad Police Station registered a case as in
Crime No.141/2020 under Sections 304-A of the Indian Penal Code
and Sections 130(1) and 177 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the
driver of the crime vehicle and subsequently filed charge-sheet
against the driver of the crime vehicle.
5.2. That the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who are the 2nd wife and son of
the deceased through 2nd wife, filed the claim petition under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for grant of compensation of
Rs.30,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the
claim petition against the driver, owner of crime vehicle, insurance
company and also the respondent Nos.4 to 6 as respondents, who are
the first wife and children of the deceased through first wife.
5.3. That the deceased was aged 43 years, hale and healthy as on
the date of accident and was working as a deliveryman in
Dhanvanthari Surgicals and earning Rs.18,000/- per month and used
to contribute the same for the maintenance of the petitioners and the
LNA,J
MACMA No.186 of 2024
3
respondent Nos.4 to 6; that due to the sudden death of the deceased,
they lost their earning member, love and affection.
6. The respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the driver and owner of
the crime vehicle filed counter denying the allegations made in the
claim petition and contended that the deceased collided against a bus
which is proceeding in front of him and fell on the road; that
respondent Nos.1 and 2 admitted the deceased in the hospital and
took care of him until his relatives arrived there; that taking
advantageous of the same, a false case was filed against them.
7. The respondent No.3-insurance company filed counter
denying the narration of the manner of occurrence of accident, the
age, avocation, treatment taken and earnings of the petitioner. The
respondent No.3 further contended that the accident had occurred
due to negligent driving of the deceased, who was not having a valid
driving licence to ride the motorcycle.
8. The respondent Nos.4 to 6 filed their counter contending that
they are the legal heirs of the deceased and petitioners are not the
legal heirs of the deceased and therefore, they are not entitled for
compensation.
LNA,J
MACMA No.186 of 2024
4
9. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
“1. Whether the accident that occurred on 20.034.2020 at 5.40
p.m., near Ravindrabharathi, Hyderabad, was due to the rash
and negligent driving of the 1st respondent of Xcent Car
bearing No.AP-10-BH-1719?
2. Whether V.Suresh Kumar sustained injuries in the said
accident and died as a result of said injuries ?
3. Whether the petitioners and respondent nos.4 to 6 are
entitled for compensation ? if so, what is the quantum of
compensation and from which of the respondents ?
4. What relief ?”
10. On behalf of the claim petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined
and Exs.A1 to A11were marked. On behalf of respondent Nos.1 and
2, RW.1 was examined. On behalf of respondent Nos.4 to 6, RW.2
was examined. On behalf of respondent No.3-insurance company, no
oral evidence has been let-in, however, attested copy of insurance
policy was marked as Ex.B1.
11. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the evidence and
material placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle and
awarded compensation of Rs.33,10,000/- along with interest @ 9%
per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization,
payable by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to the petitioner No.2 and
LNA,J
MACMA No.186 of 2024
5
respondent Nos.4 to 6 equally and dismissed the claim of the
petitioner No.1.
12. During the course of hearing of appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant/petitioner No.1 contended that the Tribunal erred in not
awarding the compensation to the appellant/petitioner No.1 on the
ground that she married the deceased while first marriage with the
respondent No.4 herein was subsisting though she proved her
dependency upon the earnings of the deceased and therefore, not
granting the compensation to her is against the settled principles of
law; that the Tribunal failed to see the difference between the
‘dependents’ under M.V.Act and the ‘legal heirs’ under Hindu
Succession Act and thereby erroneously passed the impugned award
in a mechanical manner without following the law and therefore, the
award of the Tribunal is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable and
finally prayed to modify the award by awarding the compensation to
the appellant.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6
submitted that on due consideration of the evidence and material
placed on record, the Hon’ble Tribunal had rightly awarded the
compensation. He further submitted that the marriage of 2nd wife
LNA,J
MACMA No.186 of 2024
6
during the life time of the 1st wife of the deceased is illegal and she
cannot be treated as legal heir of the deceased and therefore, she is
not entitled to any compensation and finally prayed to dismiss the
appeal.
Consideration :
14. The only issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is,
whether the appellant/2nd wife is entitled to compensation since she
married the deceased during the life time of the 1st wife ?
15. Perusal of the evidence and material placed on record would
show that appellant married the deceased during the life time of the
1st wife and that during their wedlock, they begot one child i.e.,
respondent No.7 herein, which is evident from the School Certificate
marked as Ex.A5 and the Aadhaar Card marked as Ex.A11 of
respondent No.7, wherein, name of the deceased is shown as father
of the respondent No.7. It is relevant to note that an illegitimate child
should be treated as a legitimate child of his mother and reputed
father and would be entitled to an equal share of the property/estate
of his father along with other legitimate children. In view of above,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly
LNA,J
MACMA No.186 of 2024
7
awarded the compensation to the son of the 2nd wife of the deceased
i.e., respondent No.7.
16. Insofar as claim of the appellant for compensation, on account
of death of her husband in a motor accident, it is relevant to refer to
the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gujarat State Road
Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai
and another 1, wherein it was observed that a legal representative is
one, who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor
vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent
or child. The expression, ‘legal representative’ has not been defined
in the M.V.Act. Section 2 (11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
defines ‘legal representative’ as 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 of the person on whom the
estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. The above
definition, no doubt, in terms does not apply to a case before the
Claims Tribunal, but it has to be stated that even in ordinary parlance
the said expression is understood almost in the same way in which it
1
(1987) 3 SCC 234
LNA,J
MACMA No.186 of 2024
8
is defined in the Code of Civil Procedure. A legal representative
ordinarily means a person who in law represents the estate of a
deceased person or a person on whom the estate devolves on the
death of an individual.
17. In the instant case, it is specific case of appellant that she is 2nd
wife of the deceased and that she is dependent on him. The Tribunal
did not award the compensation to the appellant only on the ground
that the appellant married the deceased during subsistence of 1st
marriage and as per Hindu Succession Act, 2nd wife is not entitled to
a share in the property of the deceased. Thus, there is no dispute
with regard to status of appellant being 2nd wife of the deceased.
Now, it has to be considered whether Hindu Succession Act strictly
applies to claim petition filed by a dependent of the deceased under
M.V.Act. Therefore, the issue that falls for consideration is whether
the appellant is dependent on the earnings of the deceased.
18. Section 166 of the M.V.Act provides for filing of an application
for compensation. The relevant portion of the said section is as
under:
“S.166. Application for compensation – (1) An application for
compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in
sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made–
LNA,J
MACMA No.186 of 2024
9
(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or
(b) by the owner of the property; or
(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the
legal representatives of the deceased; or
(d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of
the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be.
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 deceased and the legal representatives,
who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the
application”
19. The term ‘legal representative’ is interpreted broadly, not
limited to heirs under personal laws. Anyone, who can prove
financial dependence on the deceased and has suffered loss of
dependency qualifies, even if they are not a spouse or child. This
liberal interpretation aligns with the beneficial and remedial nature
of the Motor Vehicles Act, aiming to provide monetary relief to all
financially affected by such accidents.
20. In N.Jayasree v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance
Company Ltd., 2 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:
“16. In our view, the term ‘legal representative’ should be given a
wider interpretation for the purpose of Chapter XII of the MV Act and
it should not be confined only to mean the spouse, parents and
children of the deceased. As noticed above, the MV Act is a
benevolent legislation enacted for the object of providing monetary2
(2022) 14 SCC 712
LNA,J
MACMA No.186 of 2024
10relief to the victims or their families. Therefore, the MV Act calls for a
liberal and wider interpretation to serve the real purpose underlying
the enactment and fulfill its legislative intent. We re also of the view
that the in order to maintain a claim petition, it is sufficient for the
claimant to establish his loss of dependency. Section 166 of the MV
Act makes it clear that every legal representative who suffers on
account of the death of a person in a motor vehicle accident should
have a remedy for realization of compensation.”
21. In a recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sadhana
Tomar and others v. Ashok Kushwaha and others (Civil Appeal
No.3763 of 2025, dated 24.01.2025), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while
referring the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in Gujarat SRTC
(supra) and N.Jayasree (supra), observed that the claimants of the
deceased, who have not financially independent, would fall under
the definition of ‘legal representatives’ for the purpose of claiming
compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and they were
considered as dependents upon the income of the deceased.
22. As per Ex.A5-Date of Birth, Study and Conduct Certificate of
2nd petitioner issued by the principal, SR Digi High School, Alkapuri,
Hyderabad, the name of the deceased has been shown as father of
the 7th respondent herein and as per Ex.10-Aadhar Card of the
appellant, the name of the deceased was also shown as her husband,
which implies that the appellant and respondent No.7 herein are the
LNA,J
MACMA No.186 of 2024
11
second wife and son of the deceased. In view of the language
employed under Section 166 of the MV Act, any ‘legal representative’
of the deceased can file claim petition for compensation on account of
death of deceased in a road accident. In view of the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sadhana Tomar (supra), any claimant of
the deceased, who has not financially independent, would fall under
the definition of ‘legal representative’ for the purpose of claiming
compensation under the Act, 1988 and he has considered as
dependent upon the income of the deceased. Further, it is not the
case of the respondent Nos.4 to 6 that the appellant remarried
consequent to expiry of the deceased.
23. In the light of above discussion and legal position, this Court is
of the view that the appellant, who is not financially independent, is
considered to be the dependent of the deceased to claim the
compensation. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, the
appellant is entitled to compensation.
24. In the result, Appeal is allowed modifying the impugned
award dated 20.11.2023 passed in MVOP No.222 of 2020 to the extent
that the appellant herein and the respondent Nos.4 to 7 are equally
entitled to receive the compensation amount i.e., Rs.33,10,000/-,
LNA,J
MACMA No.186 of 2024
12
awarded by the Tribunal payable by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein
with costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. On such deposit,
appellant and respondent Nos.4 to 7 are entitled to equal shares in
the compensation amount along with accrued costs and interest, and
they are permitted to withdraw their respective entire share
amounts. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
_________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J
Date:23.06.2025
kkm