[Motor Accident Death] Loss Of Dependency Sufficient To Maintain Claim Petition: Madras High Court Upholds Compensation For Second Wife

Justice R Vijayakumar pointed out that under the Act, the basis for entitlement of compensation was dependency. Thus, even a legal heir who was not dependent upon the deceased would not be entitled to receive compensation.

It could also be seen that the dependency is the criteria to award compensation and mere status of legal heir alone is not sufficient to make a claim. Therefore, the basis for entitlement of the compensation is dependency. If a legal heir is not depending upon the deceased, he/she is not entitled to receive compensation for loss of dependency.

The court added that the Act was a benevolent legislation and thus it should be interpreted in a liberal manner to provide monetary relief to the victims and thus serve its real purpose.

The Motor Vehicles Act being a benevolent legislation enacted with the object of providing monetary relief to the victims, it calls for a liberal and wider interpretation to serve the real purpose. Therefore, it is clear that in order to maintain a claim, it is sufficient for the claimant to establish his/her loss of dependency.

The present appeal was filed by the first wife of the deceased and children born through the first wife. The Tribunal had arrived at a total compensation of Rs.11,59,000/- out of which a sum of Rs 3,00,000 was paid both to the first wife and the second wife, Rs 4,00,000 was paid to the son born through the second wife. The remaining amount was paid to the father of the deceased. The tribunal had rejected the claim petition of the children born through the first wife without any reason. Challenging the same, the present case was filed.

It was contended that the second marriage was said to have taken place during the subsistence of the first marriage, thus making it illegal and void. When the second marriage itself was void, the second wife and the son born through her could not be considered legal representatives.

The court noted that as per various judgments of the Supreme Court and the high courts, the right to file a claim petition was not restricted to the legal heirs but to any dependant who had suffered due to the death.

A perusal of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Division Bench Judgement of our High Court would clearly indicate that the right to file a claim petition is not restricted to the legal heirs like wife, parents and children alone, but it has been given a wider meaning to include all the dependents who had suffered on account of death of a person due to a motor accident.

In the present case, the court noted that the ration card, voter list and the birth certificate of the son proved that the deceased was living with his second wife at the time of death. The court was also convinced that they were dependent upon the deceased at the time of his death. Thus, the court held that the share in the award to the second wife was not illegal.

The court also observed that the children born through the first wife were also entitled to receive compensation for the death of their father and modified the order accordingly.

The court added that the present award would not confer any right on the second wife for claiming share in the property of the deceased and the same had to be independently established according to law.

Case Title: Susila and others v. S Thirumalai and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 125

Counsel for Appellants: Mr.C.Vakeeswaran

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.M.M.Manivelpandian, Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran, Mr.M.Chandrasekaran