The Allahabad High Court has recently affirmed that married daughters are entitled to claim full compensation in motor accident cases, regardless of their financial dependency on the deceased. Justice Jaspreet Singh dismissed two appeals filed by the Uttar Pradesh government, challenging the compensation awarded to a woman whose father and brother died in a 2009 road accident. The court's decision underscores that the right to claim compensation as legal heirs is not contingent upon financial dependence.
In this particular case, Aftab Husain and his son, Tanveer Husain, were fatally injured in a collision with a truck in 2009. Tabassum, Aftab's daughter and Tanveer's sister, filed two separate claim petitions. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded her Rs. 2,13,200 for her father's death and Rs. 1,60,400 for her brother's death, along with 6% annual interest. The state appealed, arguing that as a married daughter, Tabassum was not financially dependent on her father and brother and should only receive the statutory "no-fault" liability compensation of Rs. 50,000 per death under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The state contended that motor accident compensation is primarily based on the principle of loss of dependency, and if dependency is not proven, claimants are not entitled to compensation beyond Section 140. They cited Supreme Court decisions, including Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2007) and Deep Shikha v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2025), arguing that married daughters are presumed to be supported by their husbands.
Tabassum countered that her husband worked abroad, and she resided with her father and brother, receiving financial support and amenities from them. The Tribunal accepted this evidence, finding partial dependency. The High Court, after reviewing Supreme Court precedents including Manjuri Bera, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender (2020), Seema Rani v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2025), and Jitendra Kumar v. Sanjay Prasad (2025), held that the right to claim compensation is vested in legal heirs and is not contingent upon financial dependency.
The Allahabad High Court framed the central issue as "whether a married daughter can be excluded to claim compensation beyond the prescribed limit as mentioned in Section 140 of the Act of 1988". Justice Singh clarified that Manjuri Bera does not restrict compensation for a non-dependent legal heir to the no-fault liability amount. The court emphasized that depriving a legal heir of just compensation based on non-dependency would be a "travesty of justice". The court also stated that while calculating the final amount, the degree of dependency can be considered, but it cannot be grounds for total denial of just compensation.
The court observed that the Birender decision was followed in later Supreme Court cases like Seema Rani and Jitendra Kumar, establishing that married children, whether sons or daughters, have a right to claim compensation as legal representatives. The High Court stated that a legal heir cannot be deprived of compensation beyond the limits of Section 140 on the ground that they were not a dependent.
The High Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the Tribunal's awards. The court directed that any amount deposited with the High Court be remitted to the Tribunal for release to the claimant and that any shortfall be paid with updated interest within 60 days.
This ruling aligns with previous Allahabad High Court decisions affirming the rights of married daughters, such as in cases regarding compassionate appointments. These decisions highlight that marital status alone cannot be a ground for rejecting a daughter's claim as a legal heir.
