The Bombay High Court has held that the disabled sister of a deceased victim of a road accident from May 1991 is also entitled to receive compensation along with his widow and children. The court recognized Sridhar Shetty's sister as a 'legal representative', citing the Supreme Court's October 2021 judgment that the term under the Motor Vehicles Act should be given 'a wider interpretation and it should not be confined to mean only spouse, parents or children of the deceased.'
Wider Interpretation of Legal Representative
Justice Abhay Ahuja, in an order dated May 5 and uploaded on Thursday, stated, 'It has been observed that Section 166 of the MV Act makes it clear that every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person in a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for the realisation of the compensation... I am of the view that the respondent No. 2 (sister) would also be a legal representative and entitled to compensation.' The court allowed the appeal filed in 2002 by Vishala Shetty, the widow, and her two minor children against the April 27, 2001 verdict of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Thane.
Details of the Accident
The deceased, Sridhar Shetty, was riding his motorcycle from Thane towards the Thane-Belapur Road when he was allegedly knocked down by a Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) bus coming from Thane to Turbhe. The family's advocate, Druti Datar, noted that while MACT recorded a finding that Shetty died due to rash and negligent driving by the bus driver, it erroneously observed: 'The deceased motorcyclist was also negligent and therefore, the accident must have occurred.'
Court's Analysis and Reversal
Justice Ahuja relied on a passenger witness account stating that the bus was being driven at high and excessive speed and, while overtaking, dashed into the motorcyclist. This was supported by post-mortem and spot panchnama reports that contradicted the driver's account that he signalled Shetty not to overtake, but he did not heed. Setting aside MACT's finding of contributory negligence by Shetty, Justice Ahuja concluded that he died 'due to sole negligence of the driver.'
Compensation for Sister and Mother
Datar argued that MACT did not consider the claim in favour of Shetty's mother, who was alive at the time, and his disabled sister, who was 60 years old. Justice Ahuja disagreed with MSRTC's advocate P M Bhansali, who contended that a sister is not a legal representative under Section 166. Quoting the Supreme Court observation that the MV Act is beneficial legislation for providing monetary relief to victims or their families, Justice Ahuja added, 'That, therefore, the MV Act calls for liberal and wider interpretation to serve the real purpose underlying the enactment and to fulfil its legislative intent.' He enhanced the compensation from Rs 1.9 lakh to Rs 8.8 lakh with 9% annual interest.
