Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1411 (BOM)

Saberabi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

2019-06-19

M.G.GIRATKAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : M.G. Giratkar, J. 1. Heard learned Advocate Shri Agrawal for the claimants/appellant. 2. Admit. 3. With the consent of parties heard finally. 4. The present appeal is filed against the order dated 22.11.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola in MACP No. 92 of 2016 below Exh. 6. The application under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed vide Exh. 6 by the claimants/appellant contending therein that their daughter-in-law died in an accident. They were dependents and, therefore, they are entitled for compensation. Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under: "140. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault.- (1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section. (2) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under sub-section (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of fifty thousand rupees and the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of twenty-five thousand rupees. (3) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (4) A claim for compensation under sub-section (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2) regarding death or bodily injury to any person, for which the owner of the vehicle is liable to give compensation for relief, he is also liable to pay compensation under any other law for the time being in force: Provided that the amount of such compensation to be given under any other law shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this section or under section 163-A. 5. The Tribunal has to see that there was an accident and the deceased died in the accident. The very title of Section 140 is very clear. Without going into the details about the fault, Tribunal has to grant compensation. 6. There is no dispute that son and daughter-in-law of the claimants/appellant died in the accident. Respondent no. 1-Insurance Company insured the vehicle and respondent no.3-driver of the vehicle was driving the said vehicle at the time of accident. Without going into the details about the fault court has to grant compensation. 7. Learned Advocate Shri Agrawal has submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly come to the conclusion that application under Section 140 in another claim petition No. 93 of 2016 was granted and secondly, the mother-inlaw of the deceased is not legal heirs and, therefore, she is not entitled. 8. In support of the findings, the Tribunal has relied on judgment in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. P. Arunachalam and others, (2017) 2 ACC 49 (DB) (Mad.) 9. Learned Advocate Shri Agrawal has pointed out the observations of Madras High Court in Para 14. In para 14 it is observed that: "As held by the Tribunal, since the claimants 1 and 4 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, they are not entitled to compensation. The minor claimants 2 and 3 are entitled to equal share in the compensation awarded by this Court...." 10. Therefore, it is clear that the deceased had left their son/children as a legal heirs. In the present case, both son and daughter-in-law died in the accident without leaving behind any child. At the time of accident daughter-in-law was pregnant. 11. Learned Advocate Shri Agrawal has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Satnam Kaur Vs. Union of India and another, 2017 AAC 2140 and United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Parlad Rai and others, (2010) 4 CivCC 528 . 12. At the time of accident daughter-in-law was pregnant. 11. Learned Advocate Shri Agrawal has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Satnam Kaur Vs. Union of India and another, 2017 AAC 2140 and United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Parlad Rai and others, (2010) 4 CivCC 528 . 12. Learned Advocate Shri Marathe for respondent no. 1 has submitted that claimants/appellant are not legal heirs of the deceased/daughter-in-law, therefore, application is rightly rejected. Learned Counsel has also submitted that Insurance Company has filed application to join the parents of deceased as a legal heirs/dependant. 13. Nothing is brought on record to show that the Insurance Company moved the application before the Tribunal to join the parents of deceased as applicant/claimant/dependant. Impugned order does not show that any such application was moved by the Insurance Company. 14. The recent decision of Satnam Kaur (cited supra) clearly shows that mother-in-law is the legal heir and, therefore, entitled for compensation. It is held that: "Husband and wife died in the accident, there was no child to the deceased, thus, the mother-in-law being the heir of husband is entitled to claim compensation" 15. In the present case, the deceased son and daughterin-law were not having any child, therefore, mother-in-law i.e. claimants/appellant is entitled for compensation. 16. In the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. (cited supra), Punjab and Haryan High Court lays down the same findings. 17. The learned Tribunal wrongly relied on the decision in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. P. Arunachalam and others, (2017) 2 ACC 49 (DB) (Mad.). In para 14 of the judgment, Madras High Court has observed that the deceased left their child, who were also claimants before the Tribunal and, therefore, Tribunal come to the conclusion that father and mother-in-law are not entitled for compensation because children of the deceased were already claimants. 18. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. In that view of the matter, appeal is allowed. Impugned order passed below Exh. 6 in MACP No. 92 of 2019 is hereby quashed and set aside. Application is allowed. Respondents owner and Insurance Company (respondent nos. 1 and 2) shall jointly and severally pay the amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the claimant/appellant within a period of 3 months. In that view of the matter, appeal is allowed. Impugned order passed below Exh. 6 in MACP No. 92 of 2019 is hereby quashed and set aside. Application is allowed. Respondents owner and Insurance Company (respondent nos. 1 and 2) shall jointly and severally pay the amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the claimant/appellant within a period of 3 months. If the amount of compensation is not paid within a stipulated time the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of passing default.