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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more