In order to maintain a claim petition, it is sufficient for the claimant to establish his loss of dependency: High Court of Gauhati

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 realization of compensation. Such an opinion was held by The Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Devashis Baruah in the matter of Farhanaz Hussain Vs. Jaytun Nessa and Anr [CRP/5/2017].

The facts of the case were associated with an order which was challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition. In the said impugned order it was stated that the petitioner was not a legal heir of Late Anowar Hussain who expired due to an accident. The proceedings of the case of Late Anowar Hussain was initiated by his mother. It was also held that if the petitioner was successful in proving her legal status then she would be entitled to receive her share in the compensation amount which might be awarded for the death of Late Anowar Hussain. It was reported that the deceased was travelling from Guwahati to Tezpur in his newly bought vehicle, which was driven by his employed driver. The vehicle dashed into an iron barrier of railway track which led to the death of the deceased. 

It was reported that the Court below rejected the prayer of the petitioner to bring as a co-claimant primarily on the ground that no documentary evidence has been filed by the petitioner nor the petitioner had approached the Civil Court to have her status declared as the wife of Late Anowar Hussain for which the Court below held that she was not the legal heir of Late Anowar Hussain. 

The Hon’ble Court after examining the submissions stated that “…  The documents on record prima facie shows that the Petitioner apart from claiming that she is the wife is also intermeddling with the estate of the deceased and under such circumstances she has a right to seek impleadment as a Respondent in terms with the first proviso to Section 166(1) of the Act. In that view of the matter, I am interfering with the impugned order thereby impleading the petitioner herein as a respondent no.4 in MAC Case No.226/2011 with the liberty to file her written statement in the said proceedings… The petition stands disposed of accordingly. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. Taking into consideration that the accident occurred on 26.01.2011 and the claim proceedings is of the year 2011, the Court below is requested to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible preferable within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of appearance of the parties.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Bipasha Kundu

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat