United India Insurance Company Limited v. Damyanti Keshari, Wd/o Late Narad Singh Keshari, aged 40 years & Ors.

MAC No. 2036 of 2019 {Arising out of award dated 16-7-2019 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), North Bastar Kanker in Claim Case No.13/2017} Lata Keshri, Wd/o Late Narad Keshri, aged about 47 years, R/o Village Birgudi, Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) --- Appellant Versus

1. Damyanti Keshri, Wd/o Late Narad Singh, aged about 40 years.

2. Minor Purab Keshri, S/o Late Narad Keshri, aged about 12 years, (minor) through natural guardian mother Damyanti Keshri. Both R/o Ward No.14, Nagar Panchayat, Narharpur, Tahsil Narharpur, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants)

3. Ashok Kumar Jain, S/o Devlal Jain, aged about 23 years, R/o Village Patoud, Police Station and District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. (Driver of offending vehicle Tata Indica bearing registration No.CG-19/BD-0121)

4. Devendra Singh Thakur, S/o Chhabilal Thakur, aged about 52 years, R/o Kankalin Para, M.G. Ward Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. (Owner of offending vehicle Tata Indica bearing registration No.CG-19/BD-0121)

5. Branch Manager, The United India Insurance Company Limited, Krishna Complex, 1st Floor, Jail Road, Katcheri Chowk, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of offending vehicle Tata Indica bearing registration No.CG-19/BD-0121) --- Respondents For Insurance Company For First Wife Lata Keshari For Second Wife Damayanti Keshari : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Amicus Curiae : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate. : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar and Mr. Shashank Agrawal, Advocates. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (MAC Nos.2293/2019 & 2036/2019) Judgment on Board 04/05/2026

1. Since both the above titled appeals, filed in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’), arise out of a common award dated 16-7-2019 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), North Bastar Kanker in Claim Case No.13/2017 and since common questions of facts and law are involved in both these appeals, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The Insurance Company has preferred MAC No.2293/2019 questioning the award, whereas first wife of the deceased has preferred MAC No.2036/2019 questioning the apportionment of the award amount, as 25% has been awarded to her.

3. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: -

4. Narad Singh Keshari had met with an accident on 27-12-2016 and succumbed to the injuries. Consequently, his second wife Smt. Damayanti Keshari and her minor son Purab Keshari filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act impleading first wife Smt. Lata Keshari as party non-applicant and also eventually, the Insurance Company – United India Insurance Company Limited was made party as the offending vehicle was insured with the said Insurance Company. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that since the (MAC Nos.2293/2019 & 2036/2019) deceased was Head Master in the school, he is entitled for a compensation of ₹ 50,15,237/- and directed that 25% be paid to first wife Smt. Lata Keshari and 25% be paid to second wife Smt. Damayanti Keshari and remaining 50% has been awarded in favour of minor Purab Keshari. In this factual backdrop, the aforesaid two appeals have arisen.

5. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company in MAC No.2293/2019, would submit that the Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in granting the claim petition, as there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, as the incident occurred on 27-12-2016, whereas the FIR was lodged on 24- 2-2017 and eventually, charge-sheet was filed on 4-3-2017 and therefore the Insurance Company ought not to have been saddled with liability to pay the compensation.

6. Mr. Aditya Khare, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in MAC No.2036/2019 i.e. first wife of the deceased namely Smt. Lata Keshari, would submit that since the present appellant is the first wife of the deceased, the entire compensation ought to have been paid to her.

7. Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of second wife of the deceased namely Smt. Damayanti Keshari, would submit that the Claims Tribunal is justified in awarding 25% of the award amount to each of the two wives of the deceased and 50% to minor Purab Keshari, which is strictly in accordance with law. (MAC Nos.2293/2019 & 2036/2019)

8. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned amicus curiae, would submit that second wife Smt. Damayanti Keshari being the dependent would be entitled for compensation in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another1 followed in the matter of Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel and another v. United India Insurance and another2 and apportionment has rightly been made, as the first wife is working as Supervisor in Urban Development Block, Village Ghotul and the second wife is working as Lecturer (Panchayat). He would rely upon the decision of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh in the matter of Zarifa Banoo and others v. Manzoor Ahmad Sheergujri and others3 and that of the High Court of Madras in the matter of Susila and others v. S. Thirumalai and others4 to buttress his submission.

9. Mr. Shashank Agrawal, learned amicus curiae, would bring to the notice of the Court the decision of the Bombay High Court in the matter of Abdul Rahman and others v. Dayaram and others5 to contend that the question of apportionment will not be guided by the personal law and it will be guided by the level of dependency.