High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.08.29 14:54:44 +0530 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR AFR MAC No. 1183 of 2016 Judgment Reserved on : 24.07.2025 Judgment Delivered on :29.08.2025 1. Smt. Rajmuni, Wd/o Late Sanju Nayak, Aged About 28 Years, 2. Minor Raj S/o Late Sanju Nayak, Aged About 10 Years, 3. Minor Rajat S/o Late Sanju Nayak, Aged About 5 Years, 4. Minor Ku. Sandhya D/o Late Sanju Nayak, Aged About 2 Years, 5. Mamta Wd/o Late Sanju Nayak, Aged About 22 Years, 6. Minor Rahul S/o Late Sanju Nayak, Aged About 1 Year, 7. Minor Ku. Sanjana D/o Late Sanju Nayak, Aged About 1 Year 8. Ranjeet Nayak S/o Late Sanju Nayak, Aged About 28 Years Appellant No.1 herself and for appellant No.2 to 4 through her mother and next friend, appellant No.1. For appellant No.5 herself and for appellant No.6 & 7 through her mother and next friend appellant No.5. All are R/o Village – Harijan Tola, Palkot Post and P.S. Palkot District – Gumla (JH), Civil and Revenue District – Gumla (JH). ... Appellants/Applicants versus 1. C. G. State Civil Supplier Corporation Limited, Tahsil Office Premises- Jashpur District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (Owner), 2. Shankar Singh S/o Laxman Singh Koyari, Aged About 45 Years Occupation- Driver, R/o Village- Gada Ghamarhiya, Tahsil And District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (Driver), 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Micro Office, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer of the Offending Vehicle) 4. Purnchand Mishra S/o Late Gopinath Mishra, R/o Village - Braman Toli, Palkot District - Gumla (JH) (Owner of the Bolero Vehicle) 2 5. National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office- Palkot Road, Gumla, District- Gumla, (JH), Local Branch Office- Priyadarsani Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer of the Bolero Vehicle), ... Respondents/Non-applicants
Legal Reasoning
A legal heir may also be a legal representative. “16. In our view, the term “legal representative” should be given a wider interpretation for the purpose of Chapter XII of the MV Act and it should not be confined only to mean the spouse, parents and children of the deceased. As noticed above, the MV Act is a benevolent legislation enacted for the object of providing monetary relief to the victims or their families. 6 Therefore, the MV Act calls for a liberal and wider interpretation to serve the real purpose underlying the enactment and fulfil its legislative intent. We are also of the view that in order to maintain a claim petition, it is sufficient for the claimant to establish his loss of dependency. 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 realisation of compensation.” 11.Further, the High Court of Karnataka, in the matter of Lalita (supra) has also held in paragraph 49 as under: “49. Therefore, in the instant case, on facts it is established that the deceased was living with the second wife and children were depending solely on the income of the deceased. Having regard to the provisions contained in Section 168 of the 1988 Act, it cannot be said that the second wife is not entitled to any maintenance or that she has to be excluded from the compensation payable by the Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view having regard to the intention of the legislature as reflected in Section 168 of the 1988 Act, where it is a legal representative of the deceased and not a legal heir, who is entitled to maintain a petition and when the definition of the term 'legal representative' includes intermeddier, the second wife, as she would be intermeddling with the estate of the deceased by virtue of the fact that she was living with him at the time of his death would be entitled to maintain a petition. She also would be entitled to compensation, as a dependant, as she was depending on him for her living and sustained loss on account of his death. At the same time the first wife, who had been living separately, for whatever reason and even if she was not dependent on the deceased, would be 7 entitled to compensation, as a legally wedded wife and also as a person entitled to the estate of the deceased. Similarly, the daughter of the second wife, though Illegitimate, by virtue of Section 16(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, is to be treated as legitimate child. She would be entitled to a share in the estate of the father as class-I heir and the petition filed by her can neither be dismissed nor she can be denied the compensation. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that in the facts of this case, the order passed by the Tribunal holding that the petition filed by the second wife is not maintainable is not correct and therefore, it has to be set aside. The second wife, as dependent on the deceased and an intermeddler of his estate and who has sustained loss is entitled to compensation along with the first wife and her own daughter. Therefore all of them are entitled to compensation. We therefore have to first determine the amount of compensation payable and then specify the person or persons to whom, compensation is payable and then specify the amount payable to such persons out of the compensation so determined.” 12. This apart, the Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court reported in 2021(2) TN MAC 169 (Saroja Vs. Parvathy and Others) in paragraph 43 has held as follows: “43. Therefore, in all the above cases, the discussion made would show that dependency is the criteria to award compensation. Hence, mere status of legal representative alone is not sufficient to make a claim. Thus, the basis for entitlement for compensation is dependency. If a legal representative is not a dependant of the deceased, he is not entitled for compensation for loss of dependency. Whether the claimants are dependents or not, has to be examined 8 only based on the evidence adduced in a particular case……” 13. In another matter, the Hon’ble Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.7749 of 2016 dated 07.09.2022 (The Managing Director, Banglore Metropolitan Vs. P. Shanthi and Others) in paragraph No.22 has held as follows: “22. In the present case PW1 the wife of the deceased has categorically stated that the claimants are dependant upon the deceased and when the first wife itself does not dispute the relationship of claimant No.4 – Smt. Kamakshi.P with that of the deceased and in view of the fact that the claimants were residing together and were dependant on the deceased and in the light of the judgement of the Apex Court in Jayashree’s case, we are of the considered as dependants and are entitled for compensation. Thus, the deduction of ¼th arrived by the Tribunal is justifiable.” 14. A perusal of above judgments would reveal that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. The Tribunals must bear in mind the object of the Act in awarding just and fair compensation to the victim in motor accident cases and it is also the bounden duty of the Courts/Tribunals to see that the victim or injured of the motor accident cases is properly and reasonably compensated and in assessing, what has been described as a just compensation under the Act, all factors including possibilities have to be kept in mind. 15. A perusal of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the judgment of the other High Courts would also clearly indicate that the 9 right to file a claim petition is not restricted to the legal heirs like wife, parents and children alone, but it has been given a wider meaning to include all the dependents who had suffered on account of death of a person due to a motor accident. It could be seen that the dependency is the criteria to award compensation and mere status of legal heir alone is not sufficient to make a claim. Therefore, the basis for entitlement of the compensation is dependency. 16. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation, and for the purpose of awarding adequate compensation, the principle of dependency must be given due consideration. In the present case, Appellant No. 5 is also wife of the deceased. The primary factor to be assessed is whether the claimants were dependents upon the deceased. It is important to note that both wives of the deceased, along with their legitimate and illegitimate children, jointly filed the claim petition. From the records, particularly the statement of the first wife of the deceased, Smt. Rajmuni (AW-01), it is evident that Appellant No. 5, Mamta, the another wife of the deceased, was also dependent on the income of the deceased. Therefore, Appellant No. 5- Mamta was dependent upon the deceased and is entitled to adequate compensation. 17. As far as the case of the appellant No.8 - Ranjeet Nayak, who is the brother of the deceased, aged about 28 years, is concerned, he is not entitled for any compensation as he has already attained the age of majority and further, it does not appear that his dependency was upon the deceased. 18. As regards the income of the deceased – Sanju Nayak, though the appellants/claimants in the claim petition have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by working as a driver, but 10 no documentary evidence in support thereof has been adduced by the claimants to substantiate the said pleading. However, the learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month on notional basis, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not correct. Therefore, considering the Minimum Wages provisions and the nature of work of the deceased, I propose to recompute the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,468/- i.e. Rs.65,616/- per annum. Moreover, the Tribunal has erred in not granting any amount towards future prospects, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not just and proper. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) has considered 40% towards loss of future prospects for the self-employed persons who are below 40 years. Therefore, in the present case, looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 30 years, as assessed by the Tribunal, the applicable percentage towards future prospects would be 40%. Further, taking the guidance from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, Pranay Sethi (supra) & Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), this Court recomputes the compensation in the following manner:- Sl.No. Heads Calculation (in rupees) 01. 02. 03. Income of the deceased @ Rs.5,468/- per month 40% of (1) above to be added towards future prospects. towards 1/5 deduction personal and living expenses of the deceased Rs.65,616/- per annum Rs.26,246/- Rs.65,616/- + Rs.26,246/-= Rs.91,862/- Rs.18,372/- Rs.91,862/- - Rs.18,372/- = 11 Rs.73,490/- 04. 05. Multiplier of 17 to be applied Rs.73,490 x 17 = Rs.12,49,330/- Towards Conventional Heads (loss of estate, expenses and consortium) funeral loss of Rs.2,70,000/- Total Compensation Rs.15,19,330/- 19. As regards the contention made by learned counsel for respondent No.5/insurance company with respect to the interest part, the insurance company has not filed any appeal opposing the same, and further after consideration, the interest as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal, is just and proper warranting no interference by this Court. 20. Now the appellant Nos.1 to 7/claimants, except appellant No.8, are entitled for total compensation of Rs.15,19,330/- in place of Rs.7,38,500/-, and accrued interest as awarded by the Tribunal. 21. In view of the foregoing discussion, looking to the peculiar facts of the case and that, the claim petition was filed jointly by the claimants under Section 166 of the MV Act, it is directed that the total compensation amount (i.e. Rs.15,19,330/-) with interest shall be disbursed to the appellant No.1 & 5 i.e. Smt. Rajmuni and Mamta in the ratio of 25:25 whereas the other appellant Nos.2, 3, 4, 6 & 7 are also entitled for compensation in the ratio of 10:10. It is made clear that the amount will remain deposited in any nationalized bank in a fixed deposit account till they attain majority. With regard to disbursement, as already held that the appellant No.1 & 5 are entitled for compensation amount of 25% each, out of which, half of the compensation amount shall be paid to them through bank account and remaining half shall be deposited in any nationalized bank in a fixed 12 deposit account for a period to be determined by the Tribunal. 22.
Arguments
For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal CAV Judgment 1. This appeal is filed by the claimants against the award dated 29.02.2016 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (FTC) Jashpur, District – Jashpur, C.G. (hereinafter referred to as “the Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.25/2014, awarding total compensation of Rs.7,38,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization in favour of claimant Nos.1 to 4 and 6 & 7 while fastening liability on non-applicant No.1, 2 and 3 jointly and severally while holding non-applicant No.3 primarily liable to pay the compensation. 2. As per averments made in the claim petition, on 14.04.2014, deceased- Sanju Nayak, who was aged about 30 years, earning Rs.6,000/- per month by working as a driver, died in the motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of a Truck bearing registration No.CG-15-AC-0382 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by non-applicant No.2/driver of the offending vehicle, namely, Shankar Singh. At the time of the accident, the deceased was travelling in a Bolero vehicle bearing Registration No. JH01-AT-5784, which was owned by Non-Applicant No. 4 and insured with Non-Applicant No. 5 – 3 National Insurance Company Limited, whereas the offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.1 – C.G. State Civil Supplier Corporation Limited and insured with non-applicant No.3 – Insurance Company. 3. On claim petition being filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.29,25,000/-, the Tribunal, after considering the evidence led by the parties, passed an award as mentioned herein above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that appellant No.1 – Smt. Rajmuni is the first wife of the deceased Sanju Nayak and appellant Nos.2, 3 & 4 are their children and they all have been awarded compensation by the learned Claims Tribunal. This apart, appellant No.5 – Mamta, who is the another wife of the deceased, was also dependent on the income of the deceased, but she has not been awarded any compensation, however, her children i.e. appellant Nos.6 and 7 have been awarded compensation, as such, appellant No.5 is also entitled for compensation. Similarly, appellant No.8 – Ranjeet Nayak, who is the adult brother of the deceased, is also entitled for compensation. He further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month on notional basis, whereas it should be minimum Rs. 5,468/- per month looking to the nature of work of the deceased and as per the minimum wages provision at the time of accident. He further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects and that, amount awarded by the Tribunal towards other conventional heads is also on lower side, which needs to be enhanced suitably. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court 4 in the matters of National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, N. Jayasree and Others Vs. Cholamandalam M/s General Insurance Company Limited reported in (2022) 14 SCC 712 and Lalita Vs. M.R. Sunilkumar and Others reported in (2014) SCC OnLine Kar 12825. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company, while admitting that no separate appeal has been filed against the impugned award, submits that the Tribunal considering all the relevant aspects of the matter has granted just and reasonable compensation to the claimants, which needs no interference by this Court. However, he submits that the rate of interest i.e. 9% p.a. awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal on the compensation amount is on higher side and the same needs to be suitably reduced. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 supports the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants / claimants. He further submits that respondent No.5 is not the insurer of the offending vehicle and the learned Claims Tribunal, after evaluating the evidence, has rightly fastened the liability upon non-applicant Nos.1, 2 & 3 which is just and proper. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Admittedly, the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has jointly been filed by both the wives (appellant No.1 and 5) of the deceased – Sanju Nayak arraying their children as claimants respectively. Appellant No.1 – Smt. Rajmani (AW-01) in her 5 examination-in-chief has fairly stated that Sanju Nayak (deceased) was a healthy person of 29 years old and except her, he had also performed marriage with appellant No.5 – Mamta and from both of them, they have total five children (appellants No. 2, 3, 4, 6 & 7) and further stated that, the deceased used to look after them from his income. 9. Now, the question for consideration would be whether another wife (applicant No.5) of the deceased is entitled for compensation, although she was considered to be dependent upon the deceased? 10. In order to deal with the said question, it would be apt to rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of N. Jayashree (supra) wherein it has held in paragraphs 14 and 16 as under: “14. The MV Act does not define the term “legal representative”. Generally, “legal representative” means a person who in law represents the estate of the deceased person and includes any person or persons in whom legal right to receive compensatory benefit vests. A “legal representative” may also include any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased. Such persons does not necessarily have to be a legal heir. Legal heirs are the persons who are entitled to inherit the surviving estate of the deceased.
Decision
In view of above, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the above extent. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prakash