Legal Heirs Entitled To Compensation Even If They Are Not Dependent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds MACT Award

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) award granting compensation to the legal heirs of a deceased man, reiterating that the right to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is not confined to dependents alone.

Justice Virinder Aggarwal dismissed an appeal filed by the vehicle owner challenging the MACT, award dated February 23, 2005, which had granted ₹2,70,800/- along with interest to the claimants on account of the death of Darshan Singh in a motor accident.

The case arose from an accident on December 21, 2003, when the deceased, while driving a mini truck, met with an accident due to heavy fog and poor visibility, leading to his death. His brother filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The appellant-owner contested the claim, arguing that the deceased was not employed as a driver with him. The vehicle was allegedly taken without permission. The claimant, being a married and earning brother, was not dependent on the deceased and hence not entitled to compensation. It was, however, admitted that the vehicle was uninsured at the time of the accident.

The MACT held that the accident and involvement of the vehicle stood duly proved through documentary evidence including DDR and postmortem report

The plea that the vehicle was taken without permission was unsupported by evidence. The claimants, being brother and sisters of the deceased, were legal heirs

In absence of proof of income, the Tribunal assessed notional income and awarded compensation of ₹2,70,800/- with interest, fastening liability on the owner.

The High Court found no illegality or perversity in the Tribunal's findings and rejected all contentions raised by the appellant.

On the issue of dependency, the Court made a significant observation. The term “legal representative” has a wider connotation and is not restricted to dependents alone

Even non-dependent legal heirs are entitled to maintain a claim petition.

Relying on settled law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases such as Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Sadhana Tomar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., the Court held that: “The right to claim compensation cannot be denied merely on the ground that the claimant was not financially dependent on the deceased.”

The bench highlighted that "Moreover, the statutory scheme under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act does not restrict the right to claim compensation only to dependents, but extends the same to all legal representatives of the deceased."

"Therefore, the principal contention raised by the appellant regarding absence of dependency stands rejected in light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been consistently held that the right to maintain a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act is not confined to dependents alone but extends to all legal representatives of the deceased. Dependency, at best, is a relevant factor for quantification of compensation and not for determining entitlement to claim",  it added.

The Court further noted that the deceased was unmarried and issueless, His parents had already passed away and The claimants (brother and sisters) were the only surviving legal heirs.

In such circumstances, the argument of lack of dependency was held to be irrelevant, particularly in absence of any preferential heir, said the bench.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's finding that the plea of unauthorized use of vehicle was a bald assertion and the vehicle being uninsured, the liability was rightly fastened on the owner.

Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate, Mr. Deepak Singh Saini, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. Sanjeev Patiyal, Advocate for Respondents.

Title: Paramjit Singh @ Pammi v. Jaspal Singh And Others

Click here to read