Skip to main content

Equal right for compensation to mother,father of accident

The Madras High Court bench here today ruled that under Motor Accidents Claims Act, both mother and father of a spinster, who died in a road accident, had equal right to claim compensation.

Justice S Vimala on a compensation case filed by Sivappan, father of Kaliammal who died in an accident, said "the mother of the woman has as much right as the father of the woman in claiming the compensation".

The mother S Parasakthi also could include herself as one of the claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the Judge said.

Parasakthi was added as a claimant along with other legal heirs only after the death of Sivbappan. "Even at the time when the petition was filed claiming compensation, unfortunately, the mother, though alive, had not been added as a legal heir of the deceased", the judge said.

Only after the death of Sivappan, Parasakthi had been brought on record as legal heir of her deceased husband.

The mother of the deceased ought to have been on record already in the capacity as legal heir. Therefore, the major amount of compensation had to be paid only to Parasakthi, the judge said.

The judge pointed out that the accident had occurred when the victim was travelling in a trailer attached to a tractor. The driver admitted his negligence and hence a tribunal in Sankarankovil had on April 31, 2002 directed the insurance company to pay a compensation of Rs 2.92 lakh.

The Judge agreed with the insurance company that it was not liable for the driver's mistake of having allowed the woman labourer to travel in the trailer. However, the insurance company should pay the compensation first and then recover it from the tractor owner, the judge said.

The Judge said the tribunal had also wrongly calculated compensation amount by taking the age of the deceased and not that of the claimants under consideration and reduced the amount from Rs.2.92 lakh to Rs.1.84 lakh. Major portion of this should be given to the mother, the judge said.

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/equal-right-for-compensation-to-mother-father-of-accident-114102500538_1.html

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even