1 - The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through The Divisional Manager, Division Office v. 1 - Samlu S/o Late Bongu Aged About 58 Years
Case Details
1 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:41893 AFR MAC No. 989 of 2018 1 - The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through The Divisional Manager, Division Office, Madina Manzil, Jail Road, Thana, Tah. And Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh..........(Insurance Co. For Truck No. CG17 H 2397) --- Appellant versus 1 - Samlu S/o Late Bongu Aged About 58 Years (Brother Of Since Deceased Piluram Nag) R/o School Para, Sonarpal, Tahsil Lohgundi Thana Badanji District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mangal Ram Nag S/o Late Samalu Aged About 35 Years (Nephue Of Since Deceased Piluram Nag) R/o School Para, Sonarpal, Tahsil Lohgundi Thana Badanji District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 3 - Prabhakar Yadav S/o Dhaniyaram Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Masora, Thana Kondagaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. (Driver), 4 - Hemant Arora S/o Subhash Arora Aged About 43 Years Occupation Garrage And Transporting, R/o Vill. Bhola Road Lines, Near Dau Mills Nayapara Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1524 of 2018 1 - Samalu S/o Late Bongu Aged About 58 Years Occupation Agriculturist (Brother Of Deceased) R/o School Para, Sonarpal, Tahsil 2 Lohandiguda, P.S.Badanji, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Mangal Ram Nag S/o Shri Samalu Aged About 35 Years Occupation - Agriculturist (Nephew Of Deceased) R/o School Para, Sonarpal, Tahsil Lohandiguda, P.S.Badanji, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ---Appellants Versus 1 - Prabhakar Yadav S/o Shri Dhaniyaram Aged About 43 Years Occupation Business, R/o Village Masora, P.S. Kondagaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Truck No. CG17 H - 2397) 2 - Hemant Arora S/o Shri Subhashchandra Arora, Aged About 43 Years Occupation - Transport Garage, R/o Bhola Roadlines, Near Dau Mill, Naya Para, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Truck No. CG17 H - 2397) 3 - The Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited, First Floor, Madina Building Medical College Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Truck No. CG17 H - 2397) --- Respondents For Insurance Company Mr. N.K. Malviya, Advocate For Claimants Ms. Aditi Joshi, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate For Owner and Driver None, though served.
Legal Reasoning
latter Act. Having considered all the three sets of decisions referred to above, Ahmadi, J. who wrote the judgment in Megjibhai Khimji Vira v. Chaturbhai Taljabhai came to the conclusion that an application made by the nephews of the deceased who died on account of a motor vehicle accident was clearly maintainable under Section 110-A of the Act. 13. We feel that the view taken by the Gujarat High Court is in consonance with the principles of 5 1975 ACJ 344 (AP) 6 AIR 1967 Mad 123 7 1967 ACJ 297 (P&H) 8 AIR 1969 Del 183 11 justice, equity and good conscience having regard to the conditions of the Indian society. Every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realisation of compensation and that is provided by Sections 110-A to 110-F of the Act. These provisions are in consonance with the principles of law of torts that every injury must have a remedy. It is for the Motor Vehicles Accidents Tribunal to determine the compensation which appears to it to be just as provided in Section 110-B of the Act and to specify the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid. The determination of the compensation payable and its apportionment as required by Section 110-B of the Act amongst the legal representatives for whose benefit an application may be filed under Section 110-A of the Act have to be done in accordance with well- known principles of law. We should remember that in an Indian family brothers, sisters and brothers' children and some times foster children live together and they are dependent upon the bread- winner of the family and if the bread-winner is killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, there is no justification to deny them compensation relying upon the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which as we have already held has been substantially modified by the provisions contained in the Act in relation to cases arising out of motor vehicles accidents. We express our approval of the decision in Megjibhai Khimji Vira v. Chaturbhai Taljabhai and hold that 12 the brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to maintain a petition under Section 110-A of the Act if he is a legal representative of the deceased. 15. Before concluding we may add that although the Act was extensively modified after the receipt of the report of the Law Commission, Parliament did not choose to amend Section 110-A of the Act by defining the expression "legal representatives" in relation to claims under Chapter VIII of the Act as "the spouse, parent and children of the deceased" as recommended by the Law Commission. The Law Commission had observed in its 85th Report that it would be appropriate to assign to the expression "legal representative" the same meaning as had been given to the expression "representative" for the purposes of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and that would effectively carry out the purpose of social justice underlying Chapter VIII of the Act to which the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 was the nearest approximation. This recommendation was made after referring to the divergent views expressed by the various High Courts on the meaning of the expression "legal representatives" in Section 110- A of the Act. The fact that Parliament declined to take any action on the recommendation of the Law Commission of India suggests that Parliament intended that the expression "legal representative" in Section 110-A of the Act should be given a wider meaning and it should not be confined to the spouse, parent and children of the deceased.” 13 9. Likewise in the matter of N. Jayashree and others (Supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paras 12 to 22 which read as under:- “12. In the instant case, the appellants have contended that the mother-in-law of the deceased was staying with the deceased and his family members since a long time. Taking into consideration the number of dependents of the deceased including his mother-in-law (four in number), MACT had deducted one-fourth (1/4th) of the income towards his personal expenses. However, the High Court has held that Appellant 4 being the mother-in-law of the deceased, cannot be reckoned as a dependent of the deceased. The High Court, therefore, determined the number of dependents as 3 and accordingly deducted one- third (1/3rd) of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 13. Section 166 of the MV Act provides for filing of an application for compensation. The relevant portion of the said section is as under: "166. Application for compensation.-(1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made- (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or 14 (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be: Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application." 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 person 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. A legal heir may also be a legal representative. 15. Indicatively for the present inquiry, the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, define the term "legal representative" as under: "2. (k) "Legal representative" means a person who in law is entitled to inherit the estate of the 15 deceased if he had left any estate at the time of his death and also includes any legal heir of the deceased and the executor or administrator of the estate of the deceased." 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. 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. 17. It is settled that percentage of deduction for personal expenses cannot be governed by a rigid rule or formula of universal application. It also does not depend upon the basis of relationship of the claimant with the deceased. In some cases, the father may have his own income and thus will not be considered as dependent. Sometimes, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents because they may either be independent or earning or married or be dependent on the father. 16 The percentage of deduction for personal expenditure, thus, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 18. In the instant case, the question for consideration is whether the fourth appellant would fall under the expression "legal representative" for the purpose of claiming compensation. In Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai9 this Court while considering the entitlement of the brother of a deceased who died in a motor vehicle accident to maintain a claim petition under the provisions of the MV Act, held as under: (SCC p. 250, para 13) "13. We feel that the view taken by the Gujarat High Court is in consonance with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience having regard to the conditions of the Indian society. Every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realisation of compensation and that is provided by Sections 110-A to 110-F of the Act. These provisions are in consonance with the principles of law of torts that every injury must have a remedy. It is for the Motor Vehicles Accidents Tribunal to determine the compensation which appears to it to be just as provided in Section 110-B of the Act and to specify the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid. The determination of the compensation payable and its apportionment as required by Section110-B of the Act amongst the legal representatives for whose benefit an application may be filed under Section 110-A of the Act have to be done in 9 (1987) 3 SCC (cri) 482 17 accordance with well-known principles of law. We should remember that in an Indian family brothers, sisters and brothers' children and sometimes foster children live together and they are dependent upon the bread-winner of the family and if the bread- winner is killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, there is no justification to deny them compensation relying upon the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which as we have already held has been substantially modified by the provisions contained in the Act in relation to cases arising out of motor vehicles accidents. We express our approval of the decision in Megjibhai Khimji Vira v. Chaturbhal Taljabha and hold that the brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to maintain a petition under Section 110-A of the Act if he is a legal representative of the deceased." (emphasis supplied) 19. In Hafizun Begum v. Mohd. Ikram Heque10 it was held that : (SCC p. 718, para 7) "7. '... 12. As observed by this Court in Custodian of Branches of Banco National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique the definition contained in Section 2(11) CPC is inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is not confined to legal heirs only. Instead, it stipulates that a person who may or may not be legal heir, competent to inherit the property of the deceased, can represent the estate of the deceased person. It includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate even without title 10 (2007) 10 SCC 715 18 either as executors or administrators in possession of the estate of the deceased. All such persons would be covered by the expression "legal representative". As observed in Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhar a legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child.' [Ed. As observed in Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 643, p. 648, para 12.]" (emphasis supplied) 20. In Montford Bros. of St. Gabriel v. United India Insurance11 this Court was considering the claim petition of a charitable society for award of compensation on account of the death of its member. The appellant society therein was a registered charitable society and was running various institutions as a constituent unit of Catholic Church. Its members, after joining the appellant society, renounced the world and were known as "brother". In this case, a "brother" died in a motor vehicle accident. The claim petition filed by the appellant society seeking compensation on account of the death of the aforesaid "brother" was rejected by the High Court on the ground of its maintainability. 21. This Court after examining various provisions of the MV Act held that the appellant society was the legal representative of the deceased "brother". While allowing the claim petition it was observed 11 (2014) 3 SCC 394 19 as under: (Montford Bros. case, SCC p. 400, para 17) "17. A perusal of the judgment and order of the Tribunal discloses that although Issue 1 was not pressed and hence decided in favour of the appellant claimants, while considering the quantum of compensation for the claimants, the Tribunal adopted a very cautious approach and framed a question for itself as to what should be the criterion for assessing compensation in such case where the deceased was a Roman Catholic and joined the church services after denouncing his family, and as such having no actual dependents or earning? For answering this issue, the Tribunal relied not only upon judgments of American and English courts but also upon Indian judgments for coming to the conclusion that even a religious order or an organisation may suffer considerable loss due to the death of a voluntary worker. The Tribunal also went on to decide who should be entitled for compensation as legal representative of the deceased and for that purpose it relied upon the Full Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in Sudama Devi v. Jogendra Choudhary12, which held that the term "legal representative" is wide enough to include even "intermeddlers" with the estate of a deceased. The Tribunal also referred to some Indian judgments in which it was held that successors to the trusteeship and trust property are legal representatives within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure." 12 1986 SCC OnLine Pat 214 20 22. Coming to the facts of the present case, the fourth appellant was the mother-in-law of the deceased. Materials on record clearly establish that she was residing with the deceased and his family members. She was dependent on him for her shelter and maintenance. It is not uncommon in Indian society for the mother-in-law to live with her daughter and son-in-law during her old age and be dependent upon her son-in-law for her maintenance. Appellant 4 herein may not be a legal heir of the deceased, but she certainly suffered on account of his death. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that she is a "legal representative" under Section 166 of the MV Act and is entitled to maintain a claim petition.” 10. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt in likewise matter of The New India Assurance Company Limited (Supra) and has held vide paras 5 & 8 as under:- “5.In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents as because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. 8. Looking at the above, the Tribunal and the High Court should not have considered the three older married siblings, to be dependent on the deceased victim. The compensation awarded to the married siblings is therefore found to be unmerited. The appeal is accordingly allowed by setting aside the impugned award of the Motor 21 Accident Claims Tribunal as upheld by the High Court under the impugned judgment.” 11. Very recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sadhna Tomar and others vs Ashok Kushwaha and others reported in (2025) LiveLaw (SC) 309 has held in paras 13,14,15 as under:- “13. This Court has clarified in the case of Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto (2023) 1 SCC 204, that the objective of granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is to ensure that just and fair compensation is paid to the aggrieved party. Another question which arose for our consideration, as for the purpose of loss of dependency, the deduction of annual income should be 1/3rd or 1/4th, as there are five claimants. The Tribunal did not consider appellant Nos.4 and 5, namely, the father and the younger sister, respectively, of the deceased as dependents, stating therein that the father was not dependent on the income of the deceased and since the father is alive, the younger sister is also not dependent on the income of the deceased. This Court in Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai [(1987) 3 SCC 234], observed that a legal representative is one, who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent or child. 14. Recently in N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. [(2022) 14 SCC 712], this Court observed that: 22 "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. 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." (Emphasis supplied) 15. In our view, in furtherance of the above exposition of law, the appellant Nos. 4 & 5 being the father and younger sister of the deceased, both not financially independent compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and they were considered as dependents_upon the income of the deceased, as he was doing wholesale business of selling fruits to meet the day-to-day expenses of the family. Therefore, the deduction made towards the personal expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th as the number of dependent family members is five.” 12. In the present case at hand, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s 23 pronouncements have been duly considered while analyzing the status of the claimants. The evidence adduced by the claimants reveals that they are the real brother and nephew of the deceased. It is admitted and proven that they were residing separately from the deceased and maintaining independent households. The ration cards of the parties further corroborate their separate living arrangements. Upon evaluation of the evidence, there is no material on record to suggest that the claimants were wholly or partially dependent upon the deceased. There is no documentary or oral evidence that the deceased was financially supporting the claimants or that they were unable to earn due to any physical or financial incapacity. Furthermore, it has not been shown that the claimants were engaged in the same trade or business as the deceased or that the deceased’s earnings were directly contributing to their livelihood. Merely filing a claim does not establish dependency. As per the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, dependency is a question of fact, and it must be proven by the claimants. In the instant case, the claimants have failed to discharge the burden of proving dependency. 13. In Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that legal representatives such as the father and younger sister of a deceased individual, who are not financially independent, may fall within the ambit of “legal 24 representatives” under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and may be considered dependents eligible for compensation. However, in the present case, such circumstances are not made out. The claimants are adult relatives, financially independent, and residing separately from the deceased. There is no evidence to suggest that they were dependent on the deceased for their sustenance. 14.
Arguments
Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 19.08.2025 3 1. Since both the above appeals filed by the Insurance Company and claimants respectively arise out of same accident that took place on 06.01.2017, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. As per averments made in the claim petition, on 06.01.2017, deceased- Peeluram, died in the motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No.CG17-H-2397 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') by non-applicant no.1 / driver of offending vehicle-Prabhakar Yadav. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non- applicant No.2- Hemant Arora and insured with non-applicant No.3- The New India Insurance Company Limited. 3. On account of death of deceased- Peeluram, a claim petition was filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.11,70,000/- inter alia pleading that at the time of accident, deceased- Peeluram was aged about 60 years and was earning Rs.4,80,00/- per annum by doing agricultural work and was also engaged in the work of Hamali. However, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar place Jagdalpur, C.G. in Claim Case No.104/2017 vide award dated 09.03.2018, assessed and awarded the compensation of Rs.3,86,400/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization 4 while fastening the liability upon the non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company. Against the said award, Insurance Company as well as the claimants have preferred separate appeals before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has erred in law while holding the major elder brother and major nephew of the deceased to be dependents upon the deceased, which is contrary to the evidence. So far as the evidence is concerned, Samalu has categorically stated that they were living separately, each having separate houses and families, residing independently, and possessing separate ration cards as well. He further submits that the Tribunal did not consider these aspects of the matter and, without applying the relevant laws regarding dependency, decided the case in light of Smt. Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, where it was illegally held that the claimants were dependents of the deceased, whereas, in fact, they were not. They may be legal heirs or close relatives of the deceased; however, they cannot be held to be dependents of the deceased. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 7805/2022, in the matter of The New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Anand Pal & Ors. decided on 04.12.2023, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that married siblings cannot be considered dependents of the deceased. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants 5 submits that merely because the claimants are living separately, it cannot be held that they were independent. The deceased was financially supporting the claimants, and they are, in fact, dependent. The term “legal representative” has been defined, according to which the term “legal heirs” includes the brothers of the deceased. The victims of the motor accident are entitled to maintain an application for compensation. As such, they have rightly filed the application, and the award has been rightly passed. She has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another reported in (1987) 3 SCC 234 and also in the matter of N. Jayashree and Others vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited reported in (2022) 14 SCC 712 to buttress her argument. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. From perusal of the record, it appears that the claimants are real brother and nephew of deceased as such they are legal heirs as defined under the motor vehicle rules, however, so far as dependency is concerned, it has to be determined whether the claimants are dependents upon the deceased or not. 6 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered this aspect in the matter of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (Supra) vide paras 11,12,13 & 15 which are held as under:- “11. Clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 110-A of the Act provide that an application for compensation arising out of an accident may be made where death has resulted from the accident by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased or by any agent duly authorised by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 110-A provides that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. The expression "legal representative" has not been defined in the Act. Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 defines "legal representative" as a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. The above definition, no doubt, in terms does notthe estate of a deceased person or a person on whom the estate devolves on the death of an individual. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of 7 Section 110-A of the Act authorises all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased to make an application for compensation before the Claims Tribunal for the death of the deceased on account of a motor vehicle accident and clause (c) of that sub-section authorises any agent duly authorised by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased to make it. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 110-A of the Act appears to be of some significance. It provides that the application for compensation shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased. Section 110-A(1) of the Act thus expressly states that (1) an application for compensation may be made by the legal representatives of the deceased or their agent, and (//) that such application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives. Both the person or persons who can make an application for compensation and the persons for whose benefit such application can be made are thus indicated in Section 110-A of the Act. This section in a way is a substitute to the extent indicated above for the provisions of Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which provides that "every such action or suit shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent and child, if any, of the person whose death shall have been so caused, and shall be brought by and in the name of the executor, administrator or representative of the person deceased". While the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 provides that such suit shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, 8 parent and child of the deceased. Section 110- A(1) of the Act says that the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of the legal representatives of the deceased. A legal representative in a given case need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child. It is further seen from Section 110-B of the Act that the Claims Tribunal is authorised to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid. This provision takes the place of the third para of Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which provides that in every such action, the court may give such damages as it may think proportioned to the loss resulting from such death to the parties respectively, for whom and for whose benefit such action shall be brought. Persons for whose benefit such an application can be made and the manner in which the compensation awarded may be distributed amongst the persons for whose benefit the application is made are dealt with by Section 110- A and Section 110-B of the Act and to that extent the provisions of the Act do supersede the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 Insofar as motor vehicle accidents are concerned. These provisions are not merely procedural provisions. They substantively affect the rights of the parties. As the right of action created by the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 was "new in its species, new in its quality, new in its principles, in every way new" the right given to the legal representatives 9 under the Act to file an application for compensation for death due to a motor vehicle accident is equally new and an enlarged one. This new right cannot be hedged in by all the limitations of an action under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. New situations and new dangers require new strategies and new remedies. 12. Amongst the High Courts in India there is a cleavage in the opinion as regards the maintainability of action under Section 110-A of the Act by persons other than the wife, husband, parent and child of the person who dies on account of a motor vehicle accident. All these cases are considered by the High Court of Gujarat in its decision in Megjibhai Khimji Vira v. Chaturbhai Taljabhai1. The first set of cases are those which are referred to in para 5 of the above decision which lay down that every claim application for compensation arising out of a fatal accident would be governed by the substantive provisions in Sections 1-A and 2 of the 1855 Act and no dependent of the deceased other than the wife, husband, parent or child would be entitled to commence an action for damages against the tortfeasors. Amongst these cases are P.B. Kader v. Thatchamma2 and Dewan Hari Chand v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi3. The second group of cases are those referred to in para 6 of the decision of the Gujarat High Court. They are Perumal v. G. Ellusamy Reddiar4 and Vanguard 1 AIR 1981 MP 151 : 1981 MPLJ 30 2 AIR 1970 Ker 241 : 1969 Ker LJ 491 : ILR (1969) 2 Ker 307 : 1970 Lab IC 1273 3 AIR 1973 Del 67 : (1972) 74 Pun LR (D) 177 : 1973 ACJ 87 4 1974 ACJ 182 (Mad) 10 Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chellu Hanumantha Rao5. These cases lay down that while the compensation payable under Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 is restricted to the relatives of the deceased named therein the compensation payable under Section 2 thereof may be awarded in favour of the representatives of the deceased who are entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased. The third group of cases are those referred to in para 7 of the judgment of the Gujarat High Court. They are Mohammed Habibullah v. K. Seethammal6, Veena Kumari Kohli v. Punjab Roadways7 and Ishwar Devi Malik Smt v. Union of India8 which take the view that a claim for compensation arising out of the use of a motor vehicle would be exclusively governed by the provisions of Sections 110 to 110-F of the Act and bears no connection to claims under the 1855 Act and the Claims Tribunal need not follow the principles laid down under the
Decision
In view of the above findings, this Court concludes that although the claimants are not entitled to compensation under the head of “loss of dependency”, being not dependents, but they are still entitled to compensation under conventional heads, as per the judgment laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680. 15. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Sl. No. Heads Calculation (in rupees) 01. 02. 03. Towards loss of Consortium (₹40,000 × 2 claimants) with 10% increase in every three years ₹48,000/- * 2 = ₹96,000/- Funeral Expenses (₹15,000/- with 10% increase) ₹18,000/- Loss of Estate (₹15,000/- with 10% increase) ₹18,000/- Total compensation ₹1,32,000/- 16. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the 25 appeals filed by the Insurance Company is partly allowed. The claimants are held not to be dependents of the deceased and hence are not entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency. However, the claimants are entitled only to compensation under the conventional heads as detailed above i.e. Rs.1,16,000/- 17. If any amount over and above Rs.1,16,000/- has already been paid to the claimants, the Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover the excess amount from the claimants in accordance with law. Vishakha Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge