Legal heir entitled to compensation under MV Act even if not dependent on deceased: Allahabad HC

Hindustan Times

a day ago

In an important judgment, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has observed that a legal heir cannot be deprived of compensation beyond the limits of no fault liability as provided under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act, 1988 on the ground that the said heir was not a dependent of the deceased. The court observed that the claimant used to stay with her father and brother. Hence, it cannot be said that merely because the claimant was married, she would have no right or that she would not be a dependent. (For Representation)
The issue before the high court for consideration was whether a married daughter can be excluded to claim compensation beyond the prescribed limit as mentioned in Section 140 of the MV Act, 1988.
Passing the judgment on August 6 on two appeals filed by the state, Justice Jaspreet Singh observed, 'It should always be kept in mind that human life has much value, it would be anomalous to state that a person may lose a dear one or member of the family and merely because the legal representative is not dependent on the deceased hence, he or she would be confined only to the no fault liability amount as prescribed under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 and adding some amount under the conventional heads, this would be a travesty of justice and mocking at a loss of an important human being, due to negligence of another.'
In this matter, the respondent had filed a claim under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as her father and brother expired after being hit by a truck while riding a motorcycle. The motor accident claims tribunal awarded her a sum of ₹2,13,200 and Rs1,16,400 along with 6% interest per annum.
While filing the two appeals challenging the tribunal's award (order), the state contended that it was the motorcycle rider (now deceased) who was not careful while driving and on account of their own negligence the accident occurred and not on account of negligence of the truck. It was also contended that since the claimant was the married daughter of one of the deceased, hence she cannot be said to be dependent on her father.
The court observed that the claimant used to stay with her father and brother. Hence, it cannot be said that merely because the claimant was married, she would have no right or that she would not be a dependent. Accordingly, the court dismissed both the appeals filed by the state.