• Gulab Bai Sahu, S/o Shri Dharamlal Sahu, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village v. 1. Fayaz Ahmed, S/o
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:35398 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2193 of 2019 • Gulab Bai Sahu, S/o Shri Dharamlal Sahu, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village Turma Police Outpost Lawan, Thana Kasdol, District Balodabajar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant/Claimant versus 1. Fayaz Ahmed, S/o Shri Ikbal Hasan, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Karamuridan, Thana Saini, Tahsil Siradhu, District Kaushambi, Uttar Pradesh (Driver Of The Truck No. Gj-19-T-3662). 2. Sandeep Kumar Vishwakarma, S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Vishwakarma, R/o Badodara Bhagwati Complex, Tahsil Palsana, District Surat, Gujrat Pin- 394327 (Owner Of The Truck No. Gj-19-T-3662). 3. The Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited, M.M. Silver Plaza 5th Floor, Near Khaniz Bhawan, Ring Road Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Truck No. Gj-19-T-3662).
Legal Reasoning
16. In our view, the term ‘legal representative’ should be given a wider interpretation for the purpose of Chapter XII of MV Act and it should not be confined only to mean the spouse, parents and children of the deceased. As noticed above, 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 realization of compensation. 21. Coming to the facts of the present case, the fourth appellant was the motherinlaw 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 motherinlaw to live with her daughter and soninlaw during her old age and be dependent upon her soninlaw for her maintenance. Appellant no.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. (II) Whether the High Court was justified in applying a split multiplier? 11. In the aforementioned case, the deceased was son-in-law of the claimant, it was pleaded that the claimant was residing in the house of 7 her daughter and son-in-law. In the said facts of the case Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that thus the mother-in-law dependent upon the son-in-law for her maintenance may not be the legal heirs of the deceased, but for the purposes of compensation under Section 166 of the Act of 1988, she is legal representative. 12. Considering the aforementioned facts of the case and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim of appellant/claimant seeking compensation against the death of her daughter-in-law on the ground that she is not the legal heir of the deceased, overlooking the provision under Section 166 of the Act 1988, which talks of legal representative of the deceased. 13. For the foregoing discussion, the impugned award so far as it relates to rejection of the claim of compensation against the death of Laxmi Sahu is not sustainable and it is hereby set aside. 14. At this stage, counsel for the appellant submits that as the amount of compensation is not computed by the learned Claims Tribunal, in the the facts of the case looking to the age of claimant aged about 66 years instead of remitting back the case, compensation be computed considering the income of the deceased on notional basis and as per the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of S arla Verma (SMT) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. 8 15. Counsel for the respondent No.3 does not dispute the submission made by the counsel for the appellant. 16. In the facts of the case where the Claims Tribunal has not computed the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimant, this Court ought to have remitted back the matter to the Claims Tribunal for passing an award afresh. However, considering that claimant lost her son and daughter-in-law, age of the claimant as of now is more than 66 years and further considering submission of counsel for the appellant that even in absence of the proof of occupation and income, the Court or Tribunal is required to assess income of a major person notionally taking note of the wages prevailing on the date of accident at the place where the deceased was residing or considering the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, I am of the view that it will be in larger interest of the claimant, if the compensation is computed keeping in mind the settled principles. 17. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to compute the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellant/claimant. Though, in the claim application, the occupation of the deceased Laxmi Sahu was pleaded as tailoring work and earning Rs.300/- per day, however, there is no clinching and admissible piece of evidence brought on record by the claimant. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased on notional basis, treating her to be unskilled labourer and taking note of the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 18. Date of accident is 05.12.2018 and according to the notification issued by the competent authority under the Act of 1988 for the period from 01.04.2018 to 30.09.2018 and fixed for the C-Zone area, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased as Rs.8,100/-. As the 9 deceased on the date of accident has been shown to be 32 years as mentioned in the post mortem report there shall be addition of 40% of the income towards the future prospects, there shall be deduction of ½ and application of multiplier would be 16 and the claimant will further entitled for Rs.15,000/- each under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses. 19. For the foregoing discussion, I find it appropriate to compute the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimant as under:- Particulars Compensation A) Annual Loss of income/ dependency = Rs.10,88,640/- Rs.97,200/- (Rs.8,100 x 12) B) Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 40% (Rs.97,200 x 10% = Rs.1,36,080/-) C) Deduction of 1/2 towards personal and living expenses (Rs.1,36,080 x 1/2 = Rs.68,040; Rs.1,36,080 – Rs.68,040 = Rs.68,040) D) Multiplier of 16 Rs.68,040 x 16 = Rs.10,88,640/- Loss of estate Funeral Expenses Total Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.11,18,640/- 20. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of Rs.11,18,640/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA NIRALA
Arguments
4. Dharamlal, S/o Shri Rampyara Sahu, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Village Turma, Police Outpost Lawan, Thana Kasdol, District Balodabajar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Shreejal Gupta, ocunsel appears on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 23/07/2025 1. The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal challenging the impugned award dated 15.11.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Claim Case 2 No.43/2019, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application seeking compensation filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”), in part, awarded Rs.50,000/- as compensation. 2. Facts of the case are that on 05.12.2018 at about 12:00 pm, deceased Laxmi Sahu was travelling on motorcycle bearing Registration No.CG- 04-KY-3423 along with her husband Pramod Kumar Sahu (son of the appellant/claimant). On the way one truck bearing Registration No.GJ- 19-T-3662 driven rashly and negligently by non-applicant No.1, dashed the motorcycle driven by Pramod Kumar Sahu and caused accident. In the said accident Pramod Kumar Sahu and his wife Laxmi Sahu suffered serious injuries and during the course of treatment they succumbed to the injuries. The application seeking compensation is filed against the death of Laxmi Sahu by appellant/claimant, who is mother-in-law of the deceased on the ground that she was dependent upon the income of the deceased. She also filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation against the death of her son Pramod Kumar Sahu, was allowed by learned Claims Tribunal, awarded Rs.8,36,400/-, however, the claim of compensation against the death of Laxmi Sahu was dismissed on the ground that monther-in-law is not shown to be the legal representatives/successor under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 3. Counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has not considered the fact the deceased was daughter-in-law of the appellant/claimant, she was residing along with the deceased and her husband (son of the claimant) as she was an old 3 aged lady, dependent upon the income of both the deceased for all purpose, and therefore, for awarding compensation under the Act of 1988, it is to be seen whether the claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased or not and not whether the claimant is successor. In support of his submission, he placed his reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of N. Jayasree & Others Versus Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, reported in (2022) 14 SCC 712. 4. Counsel for the respondent No.3 supports the impugned award and would submit that finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal does not call for any interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of claim case. 6. Undisputedly, the claimant has lost her son and daughter-in-law in the same accident. In the claim application, she claimed compensation against the death of two persons, i.e., one is her son and another is her daughter-in-law, it is also the evidence that she is old lady aged about 60 years and her husband is not residing with her since long time. From the said fact pleaded and stated by the claimant, it is apparent that she in her old age was dependent upon the income of her son and daughter-in-law for all purposes. 7. Provision of Section 166 of the Act of 1988 provides that the application for compensation arising out of an accident may be made by the legal representatives of the deceased, where the death has resulted. Undisputedly, claimant being mother-in-law of deceased is legal representatives of the deceased. Compensation under the Act of 1988 is to be awarded in death cases, considering that the claimants have 4 lost the dependency after the death of breadwinner, and therefore, to consider the entitlement of compensation. Under the Act of 1988 one of the consideration is that, whether the claimants was dependent upon the income of the deceased or not and after that whether claimant represents estate of the deceased. 8. Undisputedly, looking to the relationship between the claimant and deceased as the deceased was daughter-in-law of the claimant and it has not come that the deceased is residing separately along with her husband from the claimant. It cannot be concluded that claimant is residing separately and was surviving on her own income. In the facts of the case and also considering the age of the deceased of about 60 years at the time of the accident and death of her daughter-in-law, it can safely presumed that the claimant was dependent upon the deceased and her son. 9. There is difference between legal heir and legal representative. Legal heir is someone, who inherit the property of deceased person according to law and a legal representative is a person, who represents the deceased estate. Legal representative is broader it encompasses all legal aspects of deceased affairs. Under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 law makers have consciously used the term legal representative to file an application seeking compensation against death. Claimant being a mother-in-law will represent the estate of deceased, and therefore, she is covered under Section 166 of the Act of 1988, as a person to file application seeking compensation. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the issue in case of N. Jayasree (supra) that whether the High Court is justified in precluding the mother-in-law of the deceased as his legal 5 representative and observed thus in para 10, 14, 15, 16 & 21 are as under:- “10. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “MV Act”) gives paramount importance to the concept of ‘just and fair’ compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the concept of ‘just compensation’ which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the applicant/s. In Sarla Verma1, this Court has laid down as under: “16. ...“Just compensation” is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well-settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.” 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 Vehicle Rules, 1989, defines the term ‘legal representative’ as under:- “Legal Representative” means a person who in law is entitled to 6 inherit the estate of the 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.”