Justice Jaspreet Singh, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench
Legal Heir Entitled to Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even If Not Dependent on Deceased: Allahabad High Court
|The Allahabad High Court considered an appeal filed against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in motor vehicle accident on account that the claimant-daughter was not dependent upon the deceased persons.
The Allahabad High Court observed that a legal heir cannot be deprived of compensation beyond the limits of no fault liability as provided under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the ground that the said heir was not a dependent of the deceased.
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 Act of 1988.
The Bench of 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.”
Case Brief
The Respondent 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 Rs.2,13,200/- and Rs.1,16,400/- along with 6% interest per annum.
While the State contended that it was the deceased who was not careful while driving the motorcycle 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 Aftab Husain hence she cannot be said to be dependent on her father.
Court’s Analysis
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 Act of 1988.
The Court referred to various judgements on the issue and observed that even if there was no loss of dependency, the claimant, if is, the legal heir or representative, will be entitled to compensation and the quantum of compensation shall not be less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act of 1988.
“The use of the words that the quantum will not be less then the liability flowing from Section 140 does not mean that it is confined to the limits as provided in Section 140 rather it has been held that the compensation in such cases cannot be less than the limit as mentioned in Section 140 and does not provide for any upper limit or cap”, the Court said.
The Court was of the opinion that it cannot be stated as a bland proposition that the legal heir if not dependent can only get the amount as provided under section 140 of the Act of 1988.
“Having considered the decisions of the Apex Court as mentioned and noticed hereinabove, it would be clear that a legal heir cannot be deprived of compensation beyond the limits of no fault liability as provided under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 on the ground that the said heir was not a dependent of the deceased”, the Court said.
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 appeals were dismissed by the Court.
Cause Title: The Chief Engineer Irrigation Deptt. V. Tabassum (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:45621)
Appearance:
Appellant: CSC
Respondent: Advocates Rajesh Trivedi, Shakeel Ahmad Ansari