Rationale Behind Allowing Married Sons To Claim Compensation Should Also Apply To Married Daughters Under MV Act: Andhra Pradesh HC
The Andhra Pradesh High Court reiterated that married daughters are also entitled to compensation like married sons under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The Court partly allowed a Petitioner and modified the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) order. The Court observed that discrimination between married sons or daughters is unacceptable, and the rationale behind allowing married and major sons to claim compensation should also apply to married daughters.
Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao noted, “This Court also cannot make any discrimination whether they are the married sons or married daughters and hence very contention of the Insurance Company that the married daughters of the deceased are not entitled for compensation cannot be accepted and the Court has to take note of rationale behind in coming to the conclusion of even married sons and major sons are eligible to claim compensation and hence the married daughters also entitled for compensation on all the heads and not to limit only for conventional heads”.
Advocate Mekala Rama Murthy appeared for the Appellant, and Advocate Maheswara Rao Kunchem appeared for the Sixth Respondent.
The Petitioners, the children of the 'deceased,' were involved in a tragic accident. The deceased and her husband were traveling in a car to a village when the driver of their car and a lorry coming from the opposite direction collided rashly and negligently. The accident resulted in the immediate death of the deceased and her husband. The First Respondent, the car's driver, also lost his life in the accident. The Second, Fourth, and Fifth Respondents did not participate in the case. At the same time, the Third and Sixth Respondents contested the claim, denying any liability to compensate the Petitioners while disputing their entitlement to compensation.
The Appellant approached the Court challenging the order, whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim against the Second to Sixth Respondents and sought enhancement of their claim.
“But the Tribunal by recording reasons held that since the claimants are not the dependents on the deceased, they are entitled for Rs.50,000/- only under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act”, the Bench noted.
The Court ascertained: “Now, the points for consideration are: 1. Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference? 2. Whether the claimants/ appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for?”.
The Court referred to the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender and others [AIR 2020 SC 434] and reiterated that per Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MVA), a legal representative can file for compensation in the event of death resulting from an accident. However, the Tribunal may limit the compensation if they determine that the claimants were not dependents of the deceased. The Court held that discrimination between married sons or daughters is unacceptable, and the rationale behind allowing married and major sons to claim compensation should also apply to married daughters. Therefore, the Court held that married daughters are entitled to claim compensation.
Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the Appeal, modifying the impugned order.
Cause Title: Shaik Kalesha v B. Sreenivasa Rao
