Married Daughters Entitled to Full Motor Accident Compensation: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that married daughters are entitled to receive full compensation in motor accident cases, even if they are not financially dependent on the deceased.
The court dismissed appeals filed by the Uttar Pradesh government against the compensation awarded to a woman following the deaths of her father and brother in a 2009 road accident.
Justice Jaspreet Singh, while delivering the judgment, referred to earlier decisions, including the Supreme Court rulings in Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Birender. The bench concluded that the right to compensation is not contingent solely on financial dependency.
“It would be anomalous to state that a person may lose a dear one and merely because the legal representative is not dependent, he or she would be confined to the no-fault liability amount… This would be a travesty of justice,” Justice Singh observed.
Upholding the tribunal’s awards, the court directed the state to release the compensation within 60 days, along with any pending amounts and applicable interest.
The incident took place on 24 April 2009, when Aftab Husain and his son Tanveer Husain were riding a motorcycle near Bahad Gram Khushalganj in Kakori, Lucknow. Their vehicle was hit by a truck allegedly driven rashly and negligently. Both sustained serious injuries and were taken to the Trauma Centre at the Medical College in Lucknow. Aftab succumbed to his injuries the same day, while Tanveer passed away a week later.
Tabassum, their only surviving legal heir, filed two separate claims before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. She was awarded ₹2,13,200 for her father’s death and ₹1,60,400 for her brother’s death, each with 6% annual interest.
The state government challenged the awards, arguing that as a married daughter, Tabassum was not financially dependent and was eligible only for the ₹50,000 no-fault compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The court, however, rejected this contention, emphasising that financial independence does not take away the right to claim full compensation. It further observed that earlier judgments like Deep Shikha v. National Insurance Co. Ltd had overlooked binding precedents affirming that legal heirs may claim compensation irrespective of dependency status.
Additionally, the court took note of Tabassum’s particular circumstances, as she had submitted evidence that her husband worked abroad in Dubai and she continued to receive support from her father and brother. The tribunal had already accepted this, recognising at least partial dependency.
