Case BriefsHigh Courts


Punjab and Haryana High Court: While deciding appeals against order passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (“Tribunal”), a bench of H.S. Madaan, J., held that an unmarried daughter of the deceased being financially dependent on her parents and hence, entitled for compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”).


In the case at hand, a petition under section 166 of the Act was filed in Tribunal by the dependents of the deceased who died in a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal granted compensation to the widow and a minor son of the deceased. However, the Tribunal held that an unmarried daughter and a major son of the deceased are not entitled to compensation. In the present appeal the claimants challenged the compensation before the High Court.

The Court noted that it is generally observed that an unmarried 21 years old daughter is financially dependent upon her parents and rather father in most cases, for meeting her basis needs. Most girls in that age group are usually students and after completion of studies, they are to be married off by the parents bearing the necessary expenses. There is nothing on record to show that she was engaged in any avocation or has any source of income. Therefore, she should be considered as a dependent family member of the deceased.

The Court further stated that,

“Section 166 of the Act is a piece of welfare legislation. It was enacted by Parliament to provide relief to the persons who suffered injuries in the motor vehicular accident as well as to the legal representatives of the victims, who unfortunately lost their lives in such mishaps. Strict rules of evidence and procedure are not applicable there.”

Hence, the Court held unmarried daughter is entitled for the compensation.

[Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Raj Rani, FAO-8491-201 (O&M), decided on 29-11-2022]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

R.C. Gupta, Advocate, Counsel for the Appellant;

Ekta Thakur, Advocate, Counsel for the Respondent.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: H.T. Narendra Prasad, J. while allowing the appeal in part and condoning the delay ordered that the claimant was not entitled to the interest for the delayed period of 358 days.

This Miscellaneous First Appeal was filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking enhancement of compensation as the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal granted the compensation of Rs 80, 340 with interest of 6% interest and fastened liability on the owner of the vehicle.

The claimants were on a two-wheeler motorcycle, in one moment a tempo driven in a rash and negligent manner coming from opposite side dashed against the motorcycle. Due to this, the claimant suffered grievous injuries.

Counsel for the appellant, Harish S. Maigur, referred a case of Rani v. National Insurance Company Limited, (2018) 8 SCC 492 in which was held that the insurance company has to pay award amount to the owner of the vehicle. After then, they can recover the same from the owner. The Counsel submitted in the light of this judgment that the Tribunal did not pay heed to this particular observation of the Supreme Court.

Counsel for Respondent 2-Insurance Company, G.N. Raichur, submitted that the permit of the Respondent 1 was not valid on the date of the accident. Hence, the Tribunal rightly passed the liability on the owner of the vehicle.

The Court agreed with the submissions of the parties but cited the aforesaid Judgment in which it was also held that even though the offending vehicle did not possess a valid permit to operate in the State concerned, the Insurance Company has to satisfy the award first. Thereafter, it can recover the same from the offending vehicle.

In view of the above, the Court modified the judgment and award of the Tribunal and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation with interest instead of the owner. Once, that is paid it can recover that amount from the owner of the vehicle. [Manjunath v. Mrityunjaya, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 2098, decided on 16-10-2019]

Uttarakhand High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: Appeal against the order of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal was entertained by Alok Singh, J. where the petitioner sought enhancement of the claim awarded by the Tribunal.

The deceased along with another was on a scooter, the deceased was a pillion rider, on their way the scooter was hit by an ambassador car, both the boys were grievously hurt and eventually deceased succumbed to his injuries. The claim of the family of the deceased was granted partly and thereby the appellant felt aggrieved by the order.

M.K. Goyal, Advocate for the appellants had challenged the judgment of the Tribunal on the following counts: first, Tribunal had failed to consider the monthly income of deceased as Rs 14,500; second Tribunal had applied the wrong multiplier and third, Tribunal had awarded fewer amount towards funeral expenses and no amount awarded for loss of estate. All the proper documents which ascertained the income of the deceased were annexed.

The Court regarding the submission of the appellant held that, Tribunal had not erred in making an order as related to the ascertainment of the income of the deceased as the documents submitted were not reliable. But further in respect to the multiplier, it stated that, “since deceased was aged about 18 years, therefore, Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 13. In view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier should be of 18.”

The Court noticed that funeral charges granted by the Tribunal was Rs 5000, which was increased by the Court along with the compensation towards loss of estate. It further revalued the income of the deceased and applied the multiplier of 18 and calculated the compensation.[Satish Kumar Garg v. Sri Nar Bahadur, 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 500, decided on 14-06-2019]