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

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

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more