NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Farida Sarosh Poonawala and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (24 Jan 2022)

Every legal representative who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realisation of compensation

MANU/DE/0244/2022

Motor Vehicles

Appellant impugns award whereby the detailed accident report has been disposed of and compensation awarded. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that, the Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation to Respondent no. 2 and 3 who were children of the wife of the deceased from her first marriage. He submits that, they cannot be treated as dependant family members of the deceased.

The Supreme Court in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & Another, has held that having regard to the condition of the Indian society, every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realisation of compensation.

Further, Supreme Court has held that, in Indian family brothers, sisters and brothers' children and sometimes foster children live together and they are dependent upon the bread-winner of the family and if the bread-winner is killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, there is no justification to deny them compensation.

A similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in N. Jayasree & Ors. Vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., wherein the Supreme Court has held that the term 'legal representative' should be given a wider interpretation for the purpose of Chapter XII of MV Act and it should not be confined only to mean the spouse, parents and children of the deceased. The Supreme Court held that the Motor Vehicle Act is a benevolent legislation enacted for the object of providing monetary relief to the victims or their families. Therefore, the Motor Vehicle Act calls for a liberal and wider interpretation to serve the real purpose underlying the enactment and fulfil its legislative intent.

There is no infirmity in the impugned award and the computation of compensation by the tribunal. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : COMPENSATION   AWARD   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved