Manager, Royal Sundaram Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prakash Balasaheb Kale
Case at a glance
Outcome
Partly allowed
The first appeal is partly allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Learned advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2-claimantssubmitted that respondent Nos.1 and 2 were dependent upon theincome of deceased Kundan, who died in the vehicular accident. Hesubmitted that they are dependents of deceased Kundan, as they arereal brothers, and therefore they are entitled to…
- Para 44. Nobody will dispute the ratio laid down in the aboveauthorities.5.perused the impugned judgment and award as well as theoral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimants. Onperusal of the cross-examination of claimant Kiran at Exhibit-16, it isadmitted that he is serving in M/s A.…
Judgment
Cause title
8 FA NO.1649 OF 2025
odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.1649 OF 2025
Manager, Royal Sundaram Insurance Co. Ltd.,At Post Saimidas Tush, 2nd Floor, Office No.208, Nagar-Manmad Road, Parichay Hotel, Near Daule Hospital, AhmednagarThrough its Authorized SignatoryRoyal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Adalat Road, 2nd Floor, Sakar Building, Near Kranti Chowk, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar-4310001 ...Appellant (Orig. Respondent No.2)
VERSUS
1.Prakash Balasaheb KaleAge: 44 years, Occu: Labourer2.Kiran Balasaheb KaleAge: 42 years, Occu: labourerBoth R/o. At Post Rahuri (Kd), Taluka RahuriDist. Ahmednagar3.Eknath Sukhdeo ChavanAge: 43 years, Occu; Tractor driver and ownerR/o. At Post Mategaon, Tq. & Dist. Beed ...Respondents
(Respondent Nos.1 and 2-Orig. Claimants, respondent NO.3-Orig. Respondent No.1)
Mr. M. R. Deshmukh, Advocate for the AppellantMr. S. B. Tarde, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2Ms. Neha Udavant h/for
Mr. S. J. Salunke, Advocate forrespondent No.3…. 8 FA NO.1649 OF 2025
CORAM: SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.DATE:12.01.2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
This appeal is preferred against the judgment and awardpassed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagarin M.A.C.P. No.358 of 2020 dated 19.12.2023.
Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that in thecross-examination of the claimant-Kiran, he has admitted that he isserving as a Mason in M/s A. S. Warale, Engineers and BuildingContractors and that his brother Prakash is also serving there. Hesubmitted that both the claimants, being real brothers aged about 38and 40 years, are the elder brothers of the deceased Kundan and werenot dependent upon his income. Learned advocate for the appellantfurther submitted that the claimants are at the most only entitled tocompensation towards loss of property. However, this aspect was notconsidered by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar. He, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal by settingaside the impugned judgment and award. In support of hissubmissions, he relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Courtin case of The New India Assurance Company Limited VS. Anand Pal 8 FA NO.1649 OF 2025and Others, arising out of SLP (Civil) No.7805 of 2022, in whichparagraph no.5 reads as under: “5. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependentsbecause they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.”
Learned advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2-claimantssubmitted that respondent Nos.1 and 2 were dependent upon theincome of deceased Kundan, who died in the vehicular accident. Hesubmitted that they are dependents of deceased Kundan, as they arereal brothers, and therefore they are entitled to compensation. Helastly prayed to dismiss the appeal. In support of his submissions, herelied upon the following authorities:a.National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender and Others, reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356, in which paragraph No.12reads as under: “12. The legal representatives of the deceased couldmove application for compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section 166(1). The major married son who is also earning andnot fully dependent on the deceased, would be still covered by theexpression "legal representative of the deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera had expounded that liability to pay compensationunder the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency ofthe legal representative concerned.
Notably, the expression "legalrepresentative" has not been defined in the Act. In Manjuri Berat, 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 8 FA NO.1649 OF 2025 Act in case of death, all or any of the legal representatives of thedeceased become entitled to compensation and any such legalrepresentative can file a claim petition. The proviso to said sub-section makes the position clear that where all the legalrepresentatives had not joined, then application can be made onbehalf of the legal representatives of the deceased by impleadingthose legal representatives as respondents. Therefore, the HighCourt was justified in its view that the appellant could maintain aclaim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Act10.... The Tribunal has a duty to make an award, determine theamount of compensation which is just and proper and specify theperson or persons to whom such compensation would be paid.
The latter part relates to the entitlement of compensation by aperson who claims for the same.11. According to Section 2(11) CPC, "legal representative" meansa person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of thedeceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representativecharacter the person on whom the estate devolves on the death ofthe party so suing or sued. Almost in similar terms is thedefinition of legal representative under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 i.e. under Section 2(1)(g).12. As observed by this Court in Custodian of Branches of BancoNational Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique the definition containedin Section 2(11) CPC is inclusive in character and its scope iswide, it is not confined to legal heirs only. Instead it stipulatesthat a person who may or may not be legal heir competent toinherit the property of the deceased can represent the estate ofthe deceased person.
It includes heirs as well as persons whorepresent the estate even without title either as executors oradministrators in possession of the estate of the deceased. Allsuch persons would be covered by the expression "legalrepresentative". As observed in Gujarat SRTC v. RamanbhaiPrabhatbhais a legal representative is one who suffers on accountof death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need notnecessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child. " 8 FA NO.1649 OF 2025b.Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Ahmednagar Vs.Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Another, reported in (1987) 3 SCC 234,wherein, in paragraph No.13, it is held that we should remember thatin an Indian family brothers, sisters and brothers’ children and sometimes foster children live together and they are dependent upon thebread-winner of the family and if the bread-winner is killed onaccount of a motor vehicle accident, there is no justification to denythem compensation. c.Montford Brothers of St.
Gabriel and Another Vs. UnitedIndia Insurance And Another, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 394, in whichparagraph No.13 reads as under:
13. From the aforesaid quoted extract it is evidentthat only if there is a justification in consonance with principlesof justice, equity and good conscience, a dependant of thedeceased may be denied right to claim compensation. Hence, we find no merit in the submission advanced on behalf of therespondent Insurance Company that the claim petition is notmaintainable because of the provisions of the Fatal AccidentsAct.
d.Manjuri Bera (Smt) Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. And Another, reported in (2007) 10 SCC 643, in which paragraphNo.13 reads as under: “13. There are several factors which have to be noted. The liability under Section 140 of the Act does not ceasebecause there is absence of dependency. The right to file a claim 8 FA NO.1649 OF 2025application has to be considered in the background of right toentitlement.
While assessing the quantum, the multiplier systemis applied because of deprivation of dependency. In otherwords, multiplier is a measure. There are three stages whileassessing the question of entitlement. Firstly, the liability of theperson who is liable and the person who is to indemnify theliability, if any. Next is the quantification and Section 166 isprimarily in the nature of recovery proceedings. As notedabove, liability in terms of Section 140 of the Act does not ceasebecause of absence of dependency.
Operative part
Nobody will dispute the ratio laid down in the aboveauthorities.5.perused the impugned judgment and award as well as theoral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimants. Onperusal of the cross-examination of claimant Kiran at Exhibit-16, it isadmitted that he is serving in M/s A. S. Warale, Engineers and Building Contractors as a Mason and his brother is also serving there. It is not pointed out that their salaries were meager or the deceasedKundan was earning higher amount of salary than them and he wasfinancially contributing to them. 6. In the absence of evidence of dependency, though theclaimants are relatives of the deceased as pointed out by learnedadvocate for the claimants, they are not entitled to compensationtowards loss of dependency, as they have not suffered any economic 8 FA NO.1649 OF 2025loss. However, the claimants are entitled to compensation under thecaption of loss of consortium i.e., Rs.44,000/- total. They are alsoentitled to Rs.15,000/- towards filial expenses, such as loss ofcompany, loss of guidance and mental pains etc. They are alsoentitled to Rs.15,000/- towards expenses incurred for carrying thedead body from the place of accident to the hospital and thereafter totheir residence. They are also entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss ofestate i.e., clothes and other articles worn by the deceased Kundan atthe time of accident. It is also found that learned Tribunal has notawarded no fault liability. Therefore, the claimants are entitled toRs.50,000/- towards no fault liability. Thus, the claimants areentitled to total compensation of Rs.1,34,000/-. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be partly allowed. The impugned judgmentand award deserves to be partly set aside. Hence, the followingorder:::ORDER::a.The first appeal is partly allowed.b.The impugned judgment and award is partly set aside andmodified as under:c.The claimants are entitled to compensation ofRs.1,34,000/- from the appellant and Respondent No.3 jointly and 8 FA NO.1649 OF 2025severally. The said amount be paid to them equally along withaccrued interest thereon. d.Award be drawn up accordingly. e.Pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of.f.remaining amount be repaid to the appellant-insurance company. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]HRJadhav 8 of 8
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The first appeal is partly allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 2(11); Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.