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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...