Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

MV Act- Relinquishment Of Shares By A Dependent Doesn't Disentitle Her From Claiming Compensation: SC [Read Order]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
5 Nov 2019 7:26 AM GMT
MV Act- Relinquishment Of Shares By A Dependent Doesnt Disentitle Her From Claiming Compensation: SC [Read Order]
x

The Supreme Court has observed that relinquishment of share by a claimant (dependent of the deceased) does not disentitle her from claiming compensation.One of the contentions adopted by the Insurance Company was that the wife of the deceased has relinquished her share in favour of her in-laws and got certain properties in lieu thereof and, therefore, the wife of the deceased is not entitled...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Supreme Court has observed that relinquishment of share by a claimant (dependent of the deceased) does not disentitle her from claiming compensation.

One of the contentions adopted by the Insurance Company was that the wife of the deceased has relinquished her share in favour of her in-laws and got certain properties in lieu thereof and, therefore, the wife of the deceased is not entitled to any compensation. The bench comprising Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Ajay Rastogi observed:

It is in between the family members to make arrangement with regard to the family affairs. The grant of compensation by the MACT or by the Court in respect of accidental death of a person will not be affected by the family arrangement of the parties inasmuch as the compensation as per law has to be awarded by the Court in favour of the dependants. The internal family matter of the parties will not affect the award of compensation.

In this case [Renu Rani Shrivastava vs.New India Assurance Company Ltd.], the deceased Palash Kumar was working as Senior Editor in Asian Age, Mumbai. He left behind his wife, daughter and parents. The MACT awarded compensation of Rs.1,37, 25,000 taking income of the deceased at Rs.12 lakhs per year. The High Court in appeal, reduced the compensation to Rs.1,03,50,000 holding that the accident was due to contributory negligence of both the drivers.

In appeal, the Apex Court bench observed that evidence on record reveal that the driver of the lorry was not only reckless but also negligent in driving the vehicle and collided with the car of the deceased at point which was the wrong side of the lorry driver. So it set aside the finding that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

The bench also observed that the MACT as well as the High Court is not justified in awarding the future 4 prospects in favour of the deceased. "The deceased was the Senior Editor in Asian Age. Though, it is not considered as a permanent job, 40% of the income of the deceased needs to be added for computing the compensation as future prospects.", the court added.

The court held that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.2,06,75,000/- in toto and the same shall be shared by the family members of the deceased in the same proportion as is awarded by the MACT. 

Click here to Read/Download Order


Next Story
Share it