The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a married daughter, as a legal heir, is entitled to claim full compensation for the death of a parent or sibling in a motor accident, and her claim cannot be restricted to the no-fault liability amount merely because she is not a dependent. Justice Jaspreet Singh, dismissing appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, affirmed that depriving a legal heir of just compensation on grounds of non-dependency would be a “travesty of justice.”
The decision came in a batch of two appeals filed by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, challenging awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lucknow. The Tribunal had granted compensation to Ms. Tabassum for the deaths of her father, Aftab Husain, and her brother, Tanveer Husain, in a road accident.
Background of the Case
The case originates from a tragic accident on April 24, 2009. Aftab Husain and his son, Tanveer Husain, were travelling on a motorcycle near Bahad Gram Khushalganj on Mohaan Road, Lucknow, when they were struck by a truck (No. URA 9406) belonging to the Irrigation Department. Both sustained grievous injuries. Aftab Husain passed away on the same day, while his son, Tanveer Husain, succumbed to his injuries on May 1, 2009.
The sole surviving family member, Ms. Tabassum (daughter of Aftab Husain and sister of Tanveer Husain), filed two separate claim petitions. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. It awarded Ms. Tabassum Rs. 2,13,200 for the death of her father and Rs. 1,60,400 for the death of her brother, along with 6% annual interest.
The State challenged these awards before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The State, represented by the learned Standing Counsel, argued that compensation in motor accident cases is based on the principle of loss of dependency. It was contended that since Ms. Tabassum was a married daughter, she could not be considered a dependent of her deceased father and brother. Therefore, the State argued, she was only entitled to compensation under the no-fault liability provision of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which would amount to Rs. 50,000 for each death. The State relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Manjuri Bera v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Deep Shikha v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. to support its claim.
In response, counsel for Ms. Tabassum argued that under Section 166 of the Act, all legal representatives have a right to claim compensation. It was submitted that the quantum of compensation may vary, but the right to claim is not extinguished by a lack of dependency. Furthermore, it was asserted that Ms. Tabassum was in fact dependent on her father and brother, as her husband was employed in Dubai and she often stayed with and was supported by her paternal family.
High Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The High Court framed the central issue for consideration as “whether a married daughter can be excluded to claim compensation beyond the prescribed limit as mentioned in Section 140 of the Act of 1988.”
Justice Jaspreet Singh conducted a detailed analysis of the legal precedents. The court observed that the State’s reliance on the Manjuri Bera case was based on a misunderstanding of its ratio. The court clarified that Manjuri Bera does not restrict compensation for a non-dependent legal heir to the no-fault liability amount. Quoting the operative part of the Manjuri Bera judgment, the court highlighted the finding that “even if there is no loss of dependency the claimant if he or she is a legal representative will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall be not less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act.” The court emphasized that this sets a floor, not a ceiling, on the compensation amount.
The judgment heavily relied on the subsequent Supreme Court decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Birender (2020), which explicitly dealt with the rights of non-dependent legal heirs. The High Court quoted the Birender judgment, which held:
“It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the legal representative concerned was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only.”
The court noted that the Birender decision was followed in later Supreme Court cases like Seema Rani and Jitendra Kumar, solidifying the principle that married children, whether sons or daughters, have a right to claim compensation as legal representatives.
The court concluded that a legal heir cannot be deprived of compensation beyond the limits of Section 140 on the ground that they were not a dependent. While calculating the final amount, the degree of dependency can be considered, but it cannot be grounds for total denial of just compensation.
In a poignant observation on the value of human life, the court stated:
“It should always be kept in mind that human life has much value, it would be anomalous to state that a person may loose 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.”
Final Decision
Finding no merit in the State’s arguments, the High Court dismissed both appeals and affirmed the awards passed by the Tribunal. The court directed that any amount deposited with the High Court be remitted to the Tribunal for release to the claimant and that any shortfall be paid with updated interest within 60 days.
