Recently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, while upholding a compensation awarded to the claimant, held that a daughter, whether married or unmarried, is a legal heir and therefore, a married daughter is entitled to stake a claim for compensation on the death of her father on account of a motor vehicle accident.
Brief Facts:
The claim arose from a motor vehicle accident in which the respondent, Karu Nukalamma, suffered severe injuries. A claim petition was filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) seeking compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal, after examining the evidence and medical records, awarded a compensation amount in favor of the respondent. The deceased, a public health worker earning a monthly salary of Rs. 6,728/-, was run over by a milk van. His married daughter and second wife claimed Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation from the owner of the offending vehicle and the Insurance Company. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,77,000/- with an interest of 7.5% per annum, to be paid jointly by the vehicle owner and the insurer.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioners contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive and that it did not appropriately consider the circumstances of the case. It further argued that at the time of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license, which constituted a breach of the insurance policy. Based on this, the insurer sought to absolve itself of liability for the claim. The insurance company also asserted that the married daughter was not a dependent of the deceased and, therefore, not entitled to receive compensation. Furthermore, it argued that the second wife was also not eligible to receive any compensation, given that her dependency on the deceased was limited.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondents argued that the Tribunal had appropriately determined the compensation based on the evidence presented, including medical reports, loss of income, and future disability. It was contended that the insurance company could not escape its statutory liability merely on technical grounds. The respondent further stated that the issue of the driver’s license, even if assumed to be valid, would not absolve the insurance company of liability but would instead shift the responsibility onto the owner of the vehicle. The claimant also emphasised that under the law, a married daughter remains a legal heir and is entitled to claim compensation for the death of her father, particularly when she can establish her dependency to some extent.
Observations of the Court:
The Court held that a married daughter is also a legal heir and entitled to claim compensation. It emphasised that while eligibility to claim compensation is one aspect, determining the extent of dependency is another. On the claim of the married daughter to compensation, the Court asserted that the term legal representative, though not defined by the Motor Vehicles Act, is defined under Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure which is an inclusive definition that includes heirs of the deceased within the ambit of legal representatives. As the compensation that could be granted on the death of an individual in a motor accident becomes the estate of the deceased, the Court held that a married daughter, similarly, is entitled to a stake in compensation on account of the death of her father. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender (2020), which held that legal representatives suffering from the death of a person in a motor vehicle accident are entitled to compensation.
The Court also examined the claim of the second wife, noting that she was not living with the deceased at the time of his death and was receiving a family pension. It held that her dependency on the deceased was limited, justifying the quantum of compensation awarded to her by the Tribunal. On the issue of the driver’s license, the Court observed that it is expected that any driver should hold a valid and effective license. The burden of proving that the driver did not have a valid license lay on the insurer, and the Claims Tribunal rightly concluded that the insurance company failed to discharge its burden of proof. Thus, the Court ruled that there was no fundamental breach of the insurance policy.
The decision of the Court:
The High Court dismissed the appeal and enhanced the compensation by Rs. 63,000/-, making the total amount Rs. 4,40,000/-. The amount was to be paid jointly and severally by the owner of the offending vehicle and the insurance company.
Case Title: The United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Karu Nukalamma and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr VRK Krupa Sagar
Case No.: MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3158/2014
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr Nagumantri Nageswara Rao
Advocate for the Respondent: Sridhar Tummalapudi, GVS Mehar Kumar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
