In a significant ruling reinforcing the beneficial nature of motor accident compensation law, the Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld that even non-dependent legal heirs are entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court dismissed an appeal challenging compensation awarded to the siblings of a deceased victim, emphasising that dependency is not a prerequisite for maintaining such claims.
The case arose from a tragic accident where the driver of the vehicle lost his life after the mini truck he was driving plunged off a bridge due to poor visibility caused by heavy fog. His brother filed a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula, awarded compensation of Rs. 2,70,800 along with interest. The vehicle involved was admittedly uninsured and owned by the appellant.
The Appellant-owner argued that the claimant, being a married brother with independent income and agricultural land, could not be treated as a dependent and hence was not entitled to compensation. It was also contended that the deceased was not employed by him and had taken the vehicle without permission.
On the other hand, the Respondents supported the Tribunal’s award, asserting that the claimants, as legal heirs, were entitled to compensation irrespective of dependency.
The Court categorically held that the findings of the Tribunal were well-reasoned and based on proper appreciation of evidence. It observed that “the term ‘legal representative’ has a wider connotation and cannot be confined only to those who were financially dependent upon the deceased,” and further emphasized that “the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial legislation calls for a liberal interpretation.”
Relying on precedents like Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. and Sadhana Tomar v. National Insurance Co., the Court reiterated that the right to claim compensation is not restricted to dependents alone. Even in absence of dependency, legal heirs cannot be denied compensation. The Court also rejected the appellant’s plea regarding unauthorized use of the vehicle, terming it a bald assertion unsupported by evidence.
The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Tribunal’s award. It directed the Appellant-owner to pay the compensation along with accrued interest within eight weeks, failing which the amount would continue to carry interest as awarded.
Case Title: Paramjit Singh @ Pammi v. Jaspal Singh & Others
Case No.: FAO No. 1811 of 2005 (O&M)
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate; Mr. Deepak Singh Saini, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Patiyal, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
