M.V. Act is beneficial and welfare legislation and court is duty bound to award “ just compensation ”

In The State of Maharashtra V/s. Smt. Kamaladevi Kailashchandra Kaushal, the Bombay High Court after 21 Years hiked compensation amount awarded by MACT.

Justice MS Sonak was hearing an appeal filed by the state and others against the MACT order dated August 5, 1995. 

In the MACT order, the appellants were directed to jointly pay a compensation of Rs.1,65,000 to the widow, mother and children of the deceased.

In the appeal among the points raised before the High Court was whether in the absence of any cross appeal or cross objections on the part of the claimants, the appeal court is entitled to award ‘just compensation’ to the claimants, in the appeal instituted by the owner?

Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ningamma and anr. vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2009) the High Court held that section 166 of the MV Act deals with “just compensation” and even if in the pleadings no specific claim was made, a party should not be deprived from getting “just compensation” in case the claimant is able to make out a case under any provision of law. Needless to say, the M.V. Act is beneficial and welfare legislation. In fact, the court is duty bound and entitled to award “just compensation” irrespective of the fact whether any plea was raised in respect of the claimant or not. Accordingly, the point of determination is liable to be decided against the appellants and in favour of the claimants.