Mr. Dharmendra Sharma and Mr. Bhupender, Advocates v. BINDU DEVI AND ORS

The application stands disposed of. MAC.APP. 640/2025 & CM APPL. 61512/2025 (for stay)

3. The appellant- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [“Insurance Company”] is in appeal against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“the Tribunal”] dated 05.08.2025 in MAC Petition No. 203/2020.

4. The claim is based upon an accident which took place on 08.07.2020 in front of Triveni Colony, Bakhtawarpur Road, Delhi. The accident was between a truck [bearing registration No. DL-1LW-9617] [“the insured vehicle”] and a rickshaw of one Sh. Ganesh Yadav. The accident resulted in the death of Sh. Ganesh Yadav, who was then aged about 52 years. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:19.11.2025 10:50:06 MAC.APP. 640/2025 Page 1 of 7

5. The claim was instituted by the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 herein, being the wife, two sons and daughter of the deceased.

6. Having returned a finding of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the insured vehicle, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 18,97,000/-, in favour of the claimants, alongwith 7.5% interest per annum.

7. The Insurance Company has urged the following two grounds in support of this appeal: a) That the Tribunal has erroneously considered minimum wages applicable in Delhi while computing compensation, whereas the deceased was admittedly a permanent resident of Bihar. b) That the Tribunal has erroneously considered the two major married sons of the deceased as dependants, and thus, computed the deduction for personal and living expenses of the deceased at 1/4th [on the basis of 4 dependants], instead of 1/3rd [on the basis of the dependency of only the wife and daughter].

8. I have heard Mr. Dharmendra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, and Mr. Omkar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4- claimants, on both the above questions. A. Applicability of the minimum wages in the State of Delhi

9. Mr. Sharma points out that the addresses of the claimants were all stated to be in the State of Bihar. He submits that no evidence was led as to the deceased residing or working in Delhi.

10. Mr. Kushwaha, on the other hand, relies on the affidavit in evidence of the wife of the deceased, which states that the deceased was working as a rickshaw puller in Alipur area of Delhi. He further submits that the deponent was cross-examined by the Insurance Company, but there was no cross Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:19.11.2025 10:50:06 MAC.APP. 640/2025 Page 2 of 7 examination on this aspect. A copy of the affidavit in evidence, alongwith the cross-examination, is handed up in Court, and is taken on record.

11. The contention of Mr. Sharma is, in my view, untenable. The accident admittedly occurred while the deceased was plying his rickshaw in Delhi. While considering the minimum wages to be applied, the Court must take account of the evidence to determine whether the deceased was, in fact, living and working within Delhi. In a case such as the present, where the deceased was a rickshaw puller, it cannot be concluded that he was not a resident in Delhi, merely because of lack of documentary evidence. The oral evidence of his wife was to this effect; most significantly, the accident itself took place while he was plying rickshaw in Delhi.

12. It may be noted that the Tribunal disbelieved the claimants’ claim of income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.1,000/- per day, and instead applied the minimum wages of an unskilled worker applicable to the State of Delhi. Having regard to the evidence, I do not find any infirmity in this conclusion. B. Deduction on account of personal living expenses

13. The determination of this question turns on the finding of dependency as far as the major sons of the deceased are concerned.

14. The affidavit of evidence of the wife of the deceased in this regard stated as follows:- “4. I say that my husband left behind myself Smt Bindu Devi (Wife of Deceased) (Age-42 years) Abhinanadan Yadav (Son of Deceased) (Age-28 years) Smt. Niwas Yadav (Son of Deceased) (Age- 24 years) Sarita Kumari (Daughter of Deceased) (Age- 21 years) who are the only legal heirs. The entire life of the petitioners has become dark and gloomy. There is sadness in the family of the petitioners. The losses suffered by the petitioners are quite irreparable and no amount can compensate the losses suffered by the petitioners. The petitioners have suffered a great mental pain, shock and trauma. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:19.11.2025 10:50:06 MAC.APP. 640/2025 Page 3 of 7

7. I say that my husband used to pay his entire earning to me for household expenses. We were fully dependent on the income of the deceased and have no any other source of income.”

15. In her cross-examination by the Insurance company, however, she deposed as follows:- “I am not an eye witness to the incident. My son Abhinandan is working as a Labour. He earns Rs.400/- daily. Abhinandan is married. My another son namely Niwas Yadav is also working as a Labour and he also earns Rs.400/- daily. Niwas is also married. My daughter namely Sarita Kumari is unmarried.”

16. The evidence, therefore, establishes that the two sons of the deceased were married and had attained majority. They were also earning Rs.400/- each per day, as labourers. However, the question which arises is whether this dis-entitles them to be counted as dependents of their late father. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Birender and Ors.1 wherein the Supreme Court noted its earlier judgment in Manjuri Bera vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.2, and held as follows: legal representatives of “12. The the deceased could move application for compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section 166(1). The major married son who is also earning and not fully dependent on the deceased, would be still covered by the expression “legal representative” of the deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera had expounded that liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the legal representative concerned. Notably, the expression “legal representative” has not been defined in the Act. In Manjuri Bera, the Court observed thus: (SCC pp. 647-48, paras 9-12) “9. In terms of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 166 of the Act in case of death, all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased become entitled to

The application stands disposed of. MAC.APP. 640/2025 & CM APPL. 61512/2025 (for stay)

3. The appellant- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [“Insurance Company”] is in appeal against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“the Tribunal”] dated 05.08.2025 in MAC Petition No. 203/2020.

4. The claim is based upon an accident which took place on 08.07.2020 in front of Triveni Colony, Bakhtawarpur Road, Delhi. The accident was between a truck [bearing registration No. DL-1LW-9617] [“the insured vehicle”] and a rickshaw of one Sh. Ganesh Yadav. The accident resulted in the death of Sh. Ganesh Yadav, who was then aged about 52 years. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:19.11.2025 10:50:06 MAC.APP. 640/2025 Page 1 of 7

5. The claim was instituted by the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 herein, being the wife, two sons and daughter of the deceased.

6. Having returned a finding of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the insured vehicle, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 18,97,000/-, in favour of the claimants, alongwith 7.5% interest per annum.

7. The Insurance Company has urged the following two grounds in support of this appeal: a) That the Tribunal has erroneously considered minimum wages applicable in Delhi while computing compensation, whereas the deceased was admittedly a permanent resident of Bihar. b) That the Tribunal has erroneously considered the two major married sons of the deceased as dependants, and thus, computed the deduction for personal and living expenses of the deceased at 1/4th [on the basis of 4 dependants], instead of 1/3rd [on the basis of the dependency of only the wife and daughter].

8. I have heard Mr. Dharmendra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, and Mr. Omkar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4- claimants, on both the above questions. A. Applicability of the minimum wages in the State of Delhi

9. Mr. Sharma points out that the addresses of the claimants were all stated to be in the State of Bihar. He submits that no evidence was led as to the deceased residing or working in Delhi.

10. Mr. Kushwaha, on the other hand, relies on the affidavit in evidence of the wife of the deceased, which states that the deceased was working as a rickshaw puller in Alipur area of Delhi. He further submits that the deponent was cross-examined by the Insurance Company, but there was no cross Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:19.11.2025 10:50:06 MAC.APP. 640/2025 Page 2 of 7 examination on this aspect. A copy of the affidavit in evidence, alongwith the cross-examination, is handed up in Court, and is taken on record.

11. The contention of Mr. Sharma is, in my view, untenable. The accident admittedly occurred while the deceased was plying his rickshaw in Delhi. While considering the minimum wages to be applied, the Court must take account of the evidence to determine whether the deceased was, in fact, living and working within Delhi. In a case such as the present, where the deceased was a rickshaw puller, it cannot be concluded that he was not a resident in Delhi, merely because of lack of documentary evidence. The oral evidence of his wife was to this effect; most significantly, the accident itself took place while he was plying rickshaw in Delhi.

12. It may be noted that the Tribunal disbelieved the claimants’ claim of income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.1,000/- per day, and instead applied the minimum wages of an unskilled worker applicable to the State of Delhi. Having regard to the evidence, I do not find any infirmity in this conclusion. B. Deduction on account of personal living expenses

13. The determination of this question turns on the finding of dependency as far as the major sons of the deceased are concerned.

14. The affidavit of evidence of the wife of the deceased in this regard stated as follows:- “4. I say that my husband left behind myself Smt Bindu Devi (Wife of Deceased) (Age-42 years) Abhinanadan Yadav (Son of Deceased) (Age-28 years) Smt. Niwas Yadav (Son of Deceased) (Age- 24 years) Sarita Kumari (Daughter of Deceased) (Age- 21 years) who are the only legal heirs. The entire life of the petitioners has become dark and gloomy. There is sadness in the family of the petitioners. The losses suffered by the petitioners are quite irreparable and no amount can compensate the losses suffered by the petitioners. The petitioners have suffered a great mental pain, shock and trauma. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:19.11.2025 10:50:06 MAC.APP. 640/2025 Page 3 of 7

7. I say that my husband used to pay his entire earning to me for household expenses. We were fully dependent on the income of the deceased and have no any other source of income.”

15. In her cross-examination by the Insurance company, however, she deposed as follows:- “I am not an eye witness to the incident. My son Abhinandan is working as a Labour. He earns Rs.400/- daily. Abhinandan is married. My another son namely Niwas Yadav is also working as a Labour and he also earns Rs.400/- daily. Niwas is also married. My daughter namely Sarita Kumari is unmarried.”

16. The evidence, therefore, establishes that the two sons of the deceased were married and had attained majority. They were also earning Rs.400/- each per day, as labourers. However, the question which arises is whether this dis-entitles them to be counted as dependents of their late father. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Birender and Ors.1 wherein the Supreme Court noted its earlier judgment in Manjuri Bera vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.2, and held as follows: legal representatives of “12. The the deceased could move application for compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section 166(1). The major married son who is also earning and not fully dependent on the deceased, would be still covered by the expression “legal representative” of the deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera had expounded that liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the legal representative concerned. Notably, the expression “legal representative” has not been defined in the Act. In Manjuri Bera, the Court observed thus: (SCC pp. 647-48, paras 9-12) “9. In terms of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 166 of the Act in case of death, all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased become entitled to