The Supreme Court

New Delhi, April 1: The owner of a vehicle or the insurer cannot deny compensation for the death of a person in a road accident merely because the victim had no dependants, the Supreme Court has said.

Setting aside a Calcutta High Court order, a bench headed by Justice Arijit Pasayat said: “Even if there is no dependence, there is a loss to the estate and a person who is a legal representative but not a dependant can yet be a beneficiary of the estate.”

The high court had rejected a compensation claim from a married woman after her father died in a 1998 road accident at Tamluk, West Midnapore district, on the ground that “she was not dependent on the deceased”.

Manjuri Bera had first moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which rejected her claim after the Oriental Insurance Company, with whom the vehicle was insured, pointed out that Manjuri was married and not dependent on her father, Bata Krishna Mondal, who had no other legal heir.

The high court upheld the tribunal’s order and said that though she was a legal representative of her father, she could claim compensation only if she was dependent on him.

Allowing an appeal by Manjuri, the apex court today said the owner of a vehicle or the insurer is liable to pay compensation to the legal representatives of an accident victim, whether they are dependent on him or not.

The bench added that the quantum of compensation cannot be less than the no-fault liability referred to in Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The section provides for fixed amounts of compensation for death and permanent disablement even if the owner of the vehicle is not responsible for the accident. It says the compensation is mandatory and separate from claims against owners for their fault or negligence.