Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Harisankar V. Menon held that a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by the widow and children of a deceased Christian male cannot be dismissed for non-impleadment of his non-lineal kindred. The Court clarified that, in such cases, legal representatives under Rule 2(k) of the Motor Vehicles Rules are to be identified in accordance with the Indian Succession Act, under which the presence of a widow and lineal descendants excludes the need to include the parents or siblings of the deceased. The Court therefore set aside the Tribunal’s finding that the petition was not maintainable and directed that the matter be reconsidered on its merits, also reiterating that non-lineal kindred need not be arrayed as respondents when a Christian male dies leaving a widow and children.

The matter arises from a motor accident that occurred on 16 January 2012, in which a Christian male riding a motorcycle was hit by a KSRTC bus. He was taken to the hospital, admitted to the ICU, and subsequently succumbed to his injuries. His widow and three children filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal seeking compensation. His parents were also originally included as claimants and remained on the party array until they died during the pendency of the proceedings.

Also  Read: Supreme Court Directs Registry To Not Clear Petitions Filed With Black-And-White Photographs; Requires AoRs To Submit Colour Images And Comply With Filing Specifications

Following the death of the parents, the widow and children submitted an interlocutory application requesting that they be recorded as the legal representatives of the deceased parents. The insurance company objected, stating that the deceased parents had nine children and that the siblings of the deceased rider had not been impleaded. The Tribunal held that the applicants should have produced a legal heirship certificate to show they alone were entitled to represent the deceased parents.

The Tribunal concluded that, because the siblings of the deceased rider had not been added as legal representatives of the deceased parents, the petition lacked the necessary parties. The Tribunal relied on the provisions relating to legal representatives under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 2(k) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, as well as succession principles noted in its reasoning.

The Court noted the statutory definition of legal representative and stated that “with reference to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, the term ‘legal representative’ refers to a person ‘who in law is entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased’.”

It then referred to the applicable succession law and recorded that “it is not in dispute that the deceased as well as the claimants before the Tribunal, were Christians.” The Court proceeded on that basis and examined Section 33 of the Indian Succession Act.

The Court observed that “it is crystal clear that the case of applicants 5 and 6 – parents of the deceased Valsalam – gets excluded under Section 33(b) of the Act, since it is only when there are no ‘lineal descendants’, the question of the parents of the deceased also joining the claim petition arises.” It stated that “in the case at hand, it is not in dispute that the deceased Valsalam had left behind the widow and his three children, and that being so, the intestate succession would be governed by the provisions of Section 33(a) alone.”

On the effect of this finding, the Court recorded that “there was no requirement for the parents of the deceased to join the claim petition with reference to the provisions of Section 166(1)(c) of the Act read with Rule 2(k) of the Rules.” It added that “upon the death of claimants 5 and 6, there was no requirement for the surviving children of the parents of the deceased to be impleaded in the claim petition.”

Also Read: Loading Of Minerals Initiates Transport Even Without Vehicle Movement: Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea Against Seizure Of Vehicle Under Mines Act

Regarding precedents relied upon by the Tribunal, the Court stated that “the reference made by the Tribunal to the judgment of this Court in Saraswathy Amma v. Ashok Kumar … is not apposite,” and that “same is the position as regards the reliance placed on the judgment … in Cheriyakutty Mammy v. Ummerkutty.”

The Court directed that “Resultantly, this appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara, for disposal on merits. Taking note of the fact that the claim petition was instituted in the year 2012, the Tribunal to take earnest efforts for an early disposal of the claim petition. The parties to mark their appearance before the Tribunal on 04.12.2025.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellants: Sri. V. Suresh, Advocate; Sri. G. Sudheer, Advocate; Sri. R. Harikrishnan (H-308), Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. P.C. Chacko (Parathanam), Advocate; Shri. P.M.M. Najeeb Khan, Advocate; Shri. Alex Antony Sebastian P.A., Advocate

Case Title: Devaki & Ors. v. The Managing Director, KSRTC & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:86092
Case Number: MACA No. 1787 of 2021
Bench: Justice Harisankar V. Menon