Skip to main content

Married girl’s parents can be heirs

 Parents of a married daughter can be considered her legal heirs, the Bombay high court has said.

The HC was hearing a compensation claim application filed by an elderly Mumbai couple after their 19-year-old married daughter died in a road accident 13 years ago, Justice A P Bhangale asked the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) to rehear the case.

"Reading the provision as it is, any legal heir is entitled to claim compensation awardable under the Motor Vehicles Act," said Justice Bhangale. "Prima facie, it cannot be said that the parents of the victim, though she was married, were not her legal heirs, particularly when her husband was no more living." The judge said that the question needs full consideration and directed the MACT to hear the application and decide on it within six months.

On November 4, 2000, Sneha Vaikar (19) and her husband died in an accident. Their minor son suffered serious injuries. Her parents Subhayadra and Manohar Ghule filed a Rs 3 lakh compensation claim before the MACT. They said Vaikar was earning Rs 3,000 a month at the time of her death. But, the MACT dismissed the plea. It also said that the addresses given by the Ghules were different—one showed their residence in Mumbai whereas another was a Navi Mumbai address. The Ghules then filed an appeal before the HC.

The HC said the MACT couldn't take a hyper technical view of the matter. "The Motor Vehicle Act is a special statute with social welfare objectives. The jurisdiction of the MACT having regard to the terminologies used in the Act must be held to be wider than the civil court," said the judge, while ruling that the MACT had erred in refusing to entertain the Ghules' application.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Married-girls-parents-can-be-heirs/articleshow/23997695.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...