Swati Talreja, D/o. Rajendra Talreja, aged about 19 Years, R/o. Ahmadji Colony, Nalghar Chowk v. 1 - Gurmukh Singh, S/o
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:37298 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for Order on : 20.06.2025 Order Passed on : 30/07/2025 MAC No. 2125 of 2019 Swati Talreja, D/o. Rajendra Talreja, aged about 19 Years, R/o. Ahmadji Colony, Nalghar Chowk, P.S.- City Kotwali, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Present appellant is knees of deceased Amit Asrani. Claimant NO.1 Aatmaram & Claimant No.2 – Suman have died after passing of award, therefore, the appellant (claimant No.3) is filing present appeal alone after attending the age of majority. --- Appellant versus 1 - Gurmukh Singh, S/o. Shri Balveer Singh. R/o Through In Charge Officer Road Freat Carrier Gurgaon, Saraswati Enclave, Behind Power House, Gurgaon District- Gurgaon, Haryana. (Driver Of Truck No. H.R. 55 / M- 7995). 2 - Road Freat Carrier Through In Charge Officer Road Freat Carrier Gurgaon, Saraswati Enclave, Behind Power House, Gurgaon, District- Gurgaon, Haryana. (Owner Of Truck No. H.R. 55 / M- 7995), District : Gurgaon, Haryana 3 - The Bharti Exsa General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through- In Charge Officer The Bharti Exsa General Insurance Co. Ltd. Chawala Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Truck No. H.R. 55 / M- 7995) ---- Respondent BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.31 10:30:09 +0530 2 For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No.1 and 2 : Mr. Prabhu Dayal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Jeet Patel Advocate, For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate on behalf Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu CAV ORDER 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) has been filed by one of claimant/appellant challenging the impugned award dated 06.10.2016, passed in Claim Case No.18/2013, whereby learned 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) allowed the application in part and awarded total sum of Rs.8,39,995/- as compensation with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this case are that on 02.09.2012 at about 5.30 PM, non-applicant No.1 while driving the offending vehicle truck bearing No.HR.-55-M-7995 rashly and negligently, dashed the car No. C.G.04-HB-2824. In the said accident, Amit Asrani and Devkanti Ganguli travelling in car suffered grievous injuries. Amit Asrani succumbed to his motor accidental injuries. Claimants, who are father, sister and knees of deceased filed, an application under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.91,25,000/- under different heads. 3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2 did not appear before the learned Claims Tribunal and were proceeded ex-parte. 4. Non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company have objected to the 3 pleadings made in the claim application and further submitted that the accident was a result of rash and negligent act of the deceased. The offending truck on the date of accident was plied in breach of policy conditions. Claim application submitted is not maintainable. Owner, driver and Insurance Company of the car in which the deceased was traveling has not been made party to the claim application. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by the respective parties allowed the claim application in part recording a finding that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by non-applicant No.1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy and contributory negligence was not found to be proved. Learned Claims Tribunal considering the fact that the claimant No.2 is sister of the deceased, claimant No.3 is the daughter of claimant No.2 were not found to be dependent upon the deceased. Claimant No.1 was also not found to be fully dependent upon the deceased, however, considering that applicant No.1 lost his major son aged about 30 years and will become dependent in future, held him entitled for part of the compensation observing that the claimant could not able to prove that the applicant No.1 is not earning anything and have reduced the dependency to the extent of 50% out of calculated dependency and computed the amount of Rs.8,39,995/-. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments made submission that after passing of the award, claimant No.1 and 2 father and sister of the deceased died. Therefore, this appeal is being 4 filed by claimant No.3 only. It is contention of learned counsel for the appellant that learned Claims Tribunal erred in recording a finding that the claimant No.2 and 3 have not brought any evidence to show that they are legal representatives of the deceased, which is erroneous in the facts of the case. He also contended that learned Claims Tribunal erred in deducting 50% of the assessed income and thereafter deducted 50% from loss of dependency, which in the facts of the case is erroneous. Deceased was unmarried person, there can be deduction of 1/2 only towards personal and living expenses. It is further contended that claimant No.2 and 3 are also legal representative of the deceased because they will be intermeddlers of the estate of the deceased. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance & Anr. Etc. reported in 2014 LawSuit (SC) 55. He next contended that rate of interest awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is on lower side, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded interest @ 12% per annum instead of 6% per annum. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 while opposing the submission of learned counsel for the appellant would submit that learned Claims Tribunal had awarded compensation after considering entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case. According to the award, there is no mention that the claimant/applicant No.2, mother of the claimant/applicant No.3 is divorcy. In absence of any such evidence, the claimant No.2 will be dependent upon her husband and claimant No.3 will be dependent upon her father, i.e. husband of the claimant 5 No.2. As per submission of learned counsel for the appellant, claimant No.1 and 2 died after passing of the award, therefore, the appeal in its form only by the claimant No.3 is not maintainable, when she has been held to be not entitled for amount of compensation. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 9. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that learned Claims Tribunal erred in recording a finding that claimant No.2 and 3 are not legal representative of the deceased is concerned, learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidence in para-15 has recorded that claimant/applicant No.2 was married with one Rajendra Talreja about 20 years ago and applicant No.3 was born from wedlock of applicant No.2 and Rajendra Talreja. 10. The learned Claims Tribunal also took note of the fact that, although it was suggested by non-applicant No. 2 to applicant No. 1, Atmaram Asrani (AW-1), that there had been no divorce between applicant No. 2 and Rajendra Talreja, which was denied, however, no admissible evidence or documentary proof, such as a divorce decree or records of any related legal proceedings, was filed. In the above facts of the case, applicant No.2 even if treated to be daughter of applicant No.1 was not dependent upon deceased, she being married. 11. In the facts of the present case, this Court is not entering into the issue regarding the status of Applicants No. 2 and 3 as legal heirs of the deceased Amit Asrani, wherein the claimant is seeking compensation under the Act, 1988. Under the Act, 1988, compensation is to be 6 awarded in death case to the dependent or the persons, who suffered any loss. In absence of the proof of desertion or divorce of the claimant No.2 with her husband, claimant/applicant No.2 and 3 cannot be held to be dependent upon the income of the deceased. For the forgoing discussions, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal holding applicant No.2 and 3 to be not entitled for compensation cannot be said to be erroneous and it is hereby affirmed. 12. So far as the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded to the father of the deceased/applicant No.1 (since deceased) is concerned, learned Claims Tribunal in para-15 has considered that applicant No.1 on the date of filing of application or the death was aged about 50 years. He was also not found to be fully dependent upon the deceased-son but considering that applicant No.1 lost his major son at the age of 50 years, he suffered pains and suffering and would become dependent in later stage of his life when he will become old has held that he is entitled for compensation and accordingly computed the amount of compensation. 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Manjuri Bera vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2007) 10 SCC 643 while considering the application filed by the married daughter of the deceased has observed that the liability under Section 140 of the Act does not cease because there was absence of dependency and held thus: “13. There are several factors which have to be noted. The liability under Section 140 of the Act does not cease because there is absence of dependency. 7 The right to file a claim application has to be considered in the background of right to entitlement. While assessing the quantum, the multiplier system is applied because of deprivation of dependency. In other words, multiplier is a measure. There are three stages while assessing the question of entitlement. Firstly, the liability of the person who is liable and the person who is to indemnify the liability, if any. Next is the quantification and Section 166 is primarily in the nature of recovery proceedings. As noted above, liability in terms of Section 140 of the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency. 14. Section 165 of the Act also throws some light on the controversy. The Explanation includes the liability under Sections 140 and 163-A. 15. Judged in that background where a legal representative who is not dependant files an application for compensation, the quantum cannot be less than the liability referable to Section 140 of the Act. Therefore, even if there is no loss of dependency the claimant if he or she is a legal representative will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall be not less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There will be no order as to costs. We record our appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Shri Jayant Bhushan, the learned amicus curiae.” 14. In the same judgment, Hon’ble Mr. S.H. Kapadia, J. as he then was, concurrenting with the view taken by Hon’ble Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat, as he then was, has observed thus: “20. In my opinion, “no-fault liability”, envisaged in Section 140 of the said Act, is distinguishable from the rule of “strict liability”. In the former, the compensation amount is fixed. It is Rs 50,000 in cases of death [Section 140(2)]. It is a statutory liability. It is an amount which can be deducted from the final amount awarded by the Tribunal. Since, the amount is a fixed amount/crystallised amount, the same has to be considered as part of the estate of the deceased. In the present case, the deceased The statutory was an earning member. 8 compensation could constitute part of his estate. His legal representative, namely, his daughter has inherited his estate. She was entitled to inherit his estate. In the circumstances, she was entitled to receive compensation under “no-fault liability” in terms of Section 140 of the said Act. My opinion is confined only to the “no-fault liability” under Section 140 of the said Act. That section is a Code by itself within the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.” 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Birender & Ors. (2020) 11 SCC 356 while deciding the issue as to whether the major sons of the deceased who are married and gainfully employed or earning, can claim compensation under the Act of 1988 or not, has observed thus:- “14. “It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only.”……………... 16. In the case at hand, there is no evidence that claimant No.1 was not having any source of income or having much less income than that of his son but learned Claims Tribunal considering that father is entitled for compensation has awarded the same. The Tribunal has calculated the compensation by applying multiplier method. The amount of compensation awarded is not to be challenged by the non-applicant. 17. This Court is examining whether the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded just compensation under all heads as specified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded 9 sum of Rs.7,99,995/- as loss of dependency, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the claimant No.1 father and Rs.20,000/- to applicant No.2 and 3. 18. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has specified the head under which the amount of compensation is to be awarded under other conventional head. Compensation to be awarded apart from loss of dependency i.e. under other conventional heads, they are funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 has held that parents are also entitled for loss of filial consortium. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate and towards loss of consortium to applicant No.1. 19. In the aforementioned facts of the case, claimant No.1 would have been entitled for compensation of Rs.7,99,995/- towards loss of dependency as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses instead Rs.10,000/- as awarded by Tribunal, Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate instead of Rs.10,000/- as awarded by Tribunal and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of filial consortium. But considering the fact that claimant No.1 after passing of award has not challenged the same and died before filing of this appeal and therefore, now the claimant No.3 will not be entitled for the compensation under head of loss of consortium on behalf of claimant 10 No.1 since deceased. The compensation under loss of consortium is personal compensation. 20. Now the compensation which ought to have been awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal on the date of passing of the award is Rs.7,99,995/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards love and affection to claimant No.2 and 3. It is ordered accordingly. 21. The objection raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company with regard to maintainability of appeal at the instance of claimant No.3, who is knees of deceased is concerned, compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is against death of son of applicant No.1 therein, he died after passing of the award. The legal representatives though has not been defined in the Act, 1988 and it has been defined under Section 2 (11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under :- “Section 2 (11) ‘Legal representative’ means 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” 22. From bare perusal of the aforementioned definition of legal representative would show that it also includes any member which intermeddles with the estate of the deceased. In the present case, appellant is stated to be maternal grand daughter of deceased. The appellant, is the niece of the deceased and was arrayed as Claimant No.3 in the claim petition, therefore, even if the finding of the learned 11 Claims Tribunal regarding entitlement to compensation under the head of 'loss of dependency' is upheld, she is still entitled to file an appeal challenging the award passed in favour of Claimant No.1, her maternal grandfather seeking enhancement on permissible grounds. 23. On the basis of above, the compensation calculated by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. For loss of dependency 2. For funeral expenses 3. For loss of estate 4. For love and affection to claimant No.2 and 3 Grand Total : : : : : 7,99,995.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 20,000.00 8,49,995.00 24.
Decision
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellant shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.8,49,995.00. Any amount paid to the claimants/appellants as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. However, it is made clear that the observation of the appellant to be legal representative in this appeal is limited to this appeal only and not for other proceedings. 25. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Balram Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge