What is the scope of Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. in a motor accident claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?

Manjuri Bera dealt specifically with the grant of compensation to a legal representative in cases where there was no dependency on the deceased. It therefore settles the entitlement of a legal representative who cannot show dependency, confining it to what Section 140 admits. It does not govern a claimant who was in fact dependent on the deceased, and applying it to a dependent parent to defeat the claim is an error.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — ss. 140, 166, 168 — Compensation — Loss of dependency — Legal representative — Married daughter — Dependent mother — Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — ss. 140, 166 — Married daughter — Legal representative without dependency — Held: A married daughter is a legal representative and keeps her Section 140 entitlement, which does not cease to exist in the absence of dependency, but she gets loss of dependency only on proving she was financially dependent on the deceased. (¶13, 14) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — ss. 166, 168 — Dependent parent — Future dependency — Held further: A parent who lived with the deceased and had no independent income is a dependent; the obligation of a child to maintain a parent in old age matches the parent's duty during minority, and future dependency cannot be disregarded. (¶15, 16) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s.168 — Just compensation — Heads of award — Held further: A Tribunal that omits loss of future income and estate, funeral expenses and consortium has not applied the Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma factors; compensation to the mother recomputed at Rs.19,22,356 and the appeals disposed of. (¶18, 19, 20)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of DEEP SHIKHA & ANR v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS. — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India