Kolkata, October 24 - In a judgment that may bring relief to many families fighting similar battles, the Calcutta High Court on Thursday enhanced compensation for the family of a woman who died in a 2019 road accident in Purba Medinipur. The Court recognised that even married daughters, though not financially dependent, could still qualify as legal representatives eligible to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Background
The case arose from the tragic death of a woman who was hit by a speeding motorcycle at Madhakhali near Matara Feed Centre on December 29, 2019. She succumbed to her injuries on January 1, 2020, at NRS Medical College and Hospital. Her family - including her husband, mother, and two married daughters - filed a compensation claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Tamluk, had awarded ₹22.77 lakh as compensation but deducted one-third of the deceased’s income towards personal expenses, treating the number of dependents as three instead of four. The family appealed, arguing that the deduction should have been one-fourth since four claimants were involved.
Court’s Observations
Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay, hearing the appeal, took note of key Supreme Court precedents - including National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Birender and Seema Rani v. Oriental Insurance Co. - which clarify that major and married children can be considered legal representatives even if not strictly dependent on the deceased.
“The definition of ‘legal representative’ under Section 2(11) of the CPC is wide,” the bench observed, “and includes persons who may not be direct heirs but still represent the estate of the deceased.”
At the same time, the Court acknowledged the opposing arguments made by the insurer, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co., which relied on Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. to claim that married daughters cannot seek compensation for loss of dependency unless they prove financial reliance on the deceased.
However, Justice Bandyopadhyay noted that the claimant (P.W.1) had testified that “all the claimants were fully dependent on the income of my deceased husband” and this statement was never challenged in cross-examination. “Uncontroverted testimony,” the Court said, “assumes admissibility and carries probative value.”
Further, the judge made a significant humanitarian observation: “The obligation of a child to maintain their parent in old age is as much a duty as that of a parent to maintain their child during minority.”
Decision
Finding merit in the appellants’ case, the High Court held that the Tribunal should have deducted one-fourth of the deceased’s income instead of one-third while computing compensation. Accordingly, the Court revised the total award to ₹25,47,305, thereby granting an additional ₹2,70,248 along with 6% annual interest from the date of filing the claim.
The insurance company has been directed to deposit the enhanced amount with the Registrar General of the Calcutta High Court within two months. The amount will be transferred directly into the claimants’ bank accounts after verification.
With that, the Court disposed of the appeal, affirming that even married daughters retain the legal right to seek justice when their parents fall victim to negligent driving.
Case: Jyotsna Bera & Others vs Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another
Court: Calcutta High Court (Appellate Side)
Bench: Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
Case Type: Motor Accident Claim Appeal (F.M.A. No. 63 of 2025)
Incident Details:
- Accident Date: December 29, 2019
- Location: Madhakhali near Matara Feed Center, Bhupatinagar PS, Purba Medinipur
- Vehicle Involved: Motorcycle No. WB-30AE/3540 (rash and negligent driving)
- Victim Died: January 1, 2020, at NRS Medical College & Hospital
Appellants (Claimants): Family of the deceased [husband, mother, and two married daughters]
Respondent: Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd.
Date of Judgment: October 24, 2025