Bombay HC: Victim’s sister entitled to compensation in road accident case

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has held that the disabled sister of the deceased victim of a May 1991 road accident is also entitled to receive compensation along with his widow and children.

It recognised Sridhar Shetty’s sister as a ‘legal representative’, citing Supreme Court’s Oct 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.”

“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,’’ said Justice Abhay Ahuja in the May 5 order uploaded on Thursday.

The HC allowed the appeal filed in 2002 by Vishala Shetty and her two minor children against the April 27, 2001, verdict of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane. Her husband was riding his motorcycle from Thane towards the Thane-Belapur Road. He was allegedly knocked down by a Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation bus coming from Thane to Turbhe. The family’s advocate, Druti Datar, said while recording a finding that Shetty died due to rash and negligent driving by the bus driver, MACT erroneously observed: “The deceased motorcyclist was also negligent and therefore, the accident must have occurred.”

Justice Ahuja relied on a passenger witness account that the bus was being driven at high and excessive speed, and while overtaking, dashed into the motorcyclist. It 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 Shetty’s contributory negligence, Justice Ahuja said he died “due to sole negligence of the driver...’’

Datar said MACT did not consider the claim in favour of Shetty’s mother, who was then alive, and his disabled sister, who was 60 years old. Justice Ahuja disagreed with MSRTC’s advocate P M Bhansali, that a sister is not a legal representative under Section 166. He quoted the SC observation that the MV Act is beneficial legislation for providing monetary relief to victims or their families. “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 added. He enhanced compensation from Rs 1.9 lakh to Rs 8.8 lakh with 9% annual interest.