Judgment:
Amitava Lala, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award dated 12th Febraary, 2007.
2. The initial questions which have been raised before this Court by the learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company are as follows:
(i) Whether wife of the deceased is entitled to claim compensation on account of her minor daughter when an earlier award to such extent is preexisting? And (ii) whether the second Motor Accidents Claim petition, which is virtually the third one, can be entertained when earlier one is dismissed as withdrawn without granting any liberty to file a fresh?.
3. So far as the second point is concerned this is hypertechnical in nature. Before passing of the order of withdrawal of the claim petition No. I of 2001 on 23rd February, 2001, the third claim petition being claim petition No. 114 of 1991 had already been filed on 22nd February, 2001. Therefore, no leave is required to file a fresh petition since the third Motor Accident Claims petition was existing at the time of the dismissal of earlier one.
4. So far as the first point is concerned, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the wife is the heir under class-I of the Schedule under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, therefore when she had received the award for her and for her minor daughter for a sum of Rupees Twenty thousand, then no one else is entitled to file any claim petition and get an award. The claimants are the father, the mother, the wife and the minor daughter of the deceased. It is necessary to mention at this stage that no second award had been granted in favour of the wife. So far as minor daughter is concerned, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been granted as compensation. However compensation has been awarded in favour of father and mother.
5. We are of the view that so far as the right of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is concerned, the question of dependency plays a vital role. Who are depending upon the income of the deceased, or disabled or injured, they are entitled to get compensation as per the scheme of the Act. It is not a question of determination of heirship. Even if the heir is not under class-I but under class-II of the Schedule under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act but depending upon the income of the, deceased or injured, entitled to get compensation by virtue, of the prevailing effect of the Act. This is a special Act i.e. beneficial piece of legislation made for the citizen not for a religion. Hindu Succession Act is made only in relation to successorship in the property of one religion, i.e. Hindu. Applicability of Motor Vehicles Act cannot be varied from religion to religion. It applies uniformly towards the dependents of deceased or injured of every religion. In such circumstances, the applicability of dependency cannot be ignored only on such ground. However in this case father is placed in class-II or the Schedule whereas the mother is placed in class-I of the Schedule under Section of said Act. Hence mother's claim cannot be ignored by any means. Therefore, there is no force in such argument either in fact or in law.
6. However, he relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Shital Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. reposed in 2003 (3) T.A.C. 518 (All.) where the dependents filed the appeal with a plea that from much before his death, the deceased was living separately from his father and mother who were not contributing anything for the maintenance of the family of the deceased. The deceased was also not giving any amount to his father and mother who were living separately. We do not find any reason to follow the ratio of that judgment since the same is distinguishable in nature for the reason that there the question arose who was financially dependent upon the income of the deceased not on the point of heirship under the Hindu Succession Act.
7. The ground regarding misjoinder/non-joinder of the necessary party cannot be gone into since such issue is not raised in this appeal.
8. Upon considering all the aspects of the matter, we find that the appeal does not deserve to be admitted and be dismissed at the admission stage itself leaving it open to the Insurance Company to recover Rupees Twenty thousand which has been paid in the earlier claim petition to the wife on account of minor daughter since the daughter is staying with father and mother of the deceased, as admitted by the parties hereunder.
9. The statutory deposit made before this Court will be remitted in favour of the Tribunal as expeditiously as possible.
10. With the above observations, the appeal is dismissed. However, no order is passed as to costs.
V.C. Misra, J.
11. I agree.