From the pleadings of the parties v. Prakash Sinha and 2024 SCC Online SC 3692 & Ors.

Judgment

#1. 2. 3. 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced.

07.05.2026 24.07.2026 27.07.2026 Full

#5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full Nil judgment and reason thereof. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Argued by : Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Goyal, Advocate for caveator/ respondents No.1 to 4. **** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J.

#1. This appeal has been instituted by the appellant-Insurance Company against the Award dated 30.04.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (for short “Tribunal”) in MACP Case No.31 of 2023, vide which a sum of Rs.21,92,744/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till FAO-4245-2025(O&M) -2- realization on account of the death of their minor sister namely Rehmana in a motor vehicular accident.

From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:-

#2. “1. Whether the accident took place on 11.09.2022 on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No.HR-45-B-6557 by respondent No.1 resulting into the death of Rehmana minor, Intejar and Sahida? OPP If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP Whether the insured has violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy, if so, its effect? OPR Relief.”

#4. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.21,92,744/- as compensation to the claimants on account of the death of minor Rehmana along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

#5. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company. The material on file has been perused and the parties have been heard.

#6. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the manner of accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held that the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle FAO-4245-2025(O&M) -3- bearing No.HR-45-B-6557 by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3-National Insurance Company Limited, who were held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by the respondents challenging the said findings, and accordingly, the finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with.

#7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the present case, one child namely Rehmana aged 8 years had died. The present claim petition has been filed by her minor brothers and sisters, who are elder to her and Tribunal has gravely erred while holding them to be dependent upon their minor sister and infact, claimants cannot be treated as dependents upon the deceased as they are not legal representatives of the deceased and claim petition on their behalf was thus not maintainable. Learned counsel next contended that the income of the deceased has been assessed on higher side, she was only 8 years old child who was dependent upon her parents and while relying upon law laid down in 2025 ACJ 1624 titled Karuna Parmar Vs. Prakash Sinha and others and 2024 SCC Online SC 3692, Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon, learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed her income to be Rs.13,120/- as a skilled worker and after deducting 50% of the income towards personal and living expenses, multiplier of 18 has been applied whereas multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied as deceased was only 8 years of age. Learned counsel contended that the appeal in hand be accepted and the Award be set aside. In support of his contentions, FAO-4245-2025(O&M) -4- learned counsel has relied upon Law Finder Doc Id #2453459 The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Anand Pal and others and Law Finder Doc Id #421379 Reshma Kumari and others Vs. Madan Mohan and another.

#8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 argued that the award in question is well reasoned and justified and same does not call for any interference and the appeal in hand be dismissed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon 2025 INSC 1070- Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and another, 2025 Livelaw (SC) 309 Sadhana Tomar & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kushwaha & Ors. and 2025 NCPHHC 37889-National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Bindiya and others.

#9. The first point to be determined is as to whether the elder brothers and sisters can be treated as dependents upon the deceased or not. Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2022) 14 SCC 712, N. Jayasree Vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd, while defining the term “legal representative” has held as under:- "16. In our view, the term "legal representative" should be given a wider interpretation for the purpose of Chapter XII of the MV Act and it should not be confined only to mean the spouse, parents and children of the deceased. As noticed above, the 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 FAO-4245-2025(O&M) -5- 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."

#10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sadhana Tomar’s case (supra) has held that a legal representative is one, who suffers on account of death of a person due to motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent or child. The term ‘legal representative’ under Motor Vehicles Act should not be given a narrow interpretation to exclude those persons as claimants who were dependent on the deceased’s income. The father and sister, being financially dependent were legal representatives under the Act entitling them to compensation.

#11. Calcutta High Court in FMA No.650 of 2007 titled Sh. Kader Ali and Others Versus The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others decided vide judgment dated 27.02.2024 has held that married brothers are the legal heirs/legal representatives of the deceased and they are entitled to compensation under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act as compensation amount is ultimately the estate of the deceased. In the aforesaid judgment, the Calcutta High Court has relied upon the law laid down in AIR 1987(SC) 1690 titled Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad Vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Anr., wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, FAO-4245-2025(O&M) -6- husband, parent and child. To the same effect is the law laid down in (2007) 10 SCC 715 – Hafizun Begum Vs. Mohd. Ikram Heque and Ors. As such, claimants being the brothers and sisters of the deceased are her legal representatives and they have to be considered as dependent upon her and they had a right to apply for compensation and finding of the Learned Tribunal in this regard does not call for any interference.

#12. Learned Tribunal while relying upon law laid down in Karuna Parmar’s case (supra) and Baby Sakshi Greola’s case (supra) has assessed the monthly income of deceased to be Rs.13,120/- as a skilled person and has applied multiplier of 18 while assessing the compensation after deducting 50% of amount towards personal expenses. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding Civil Appeal No. 14756 of 2025 titled Devendra Kumar Tripathi & Ors. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. vide judgment dated

15.12.2025, while distinguishing the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692, Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon, 2024, which was an injury case has held that in cases involving the death of a minor child, the claim for compensation stands on a different footing from cases relating to permanent disability suffered by a minor. Relying upon the principles laid down in (2013) 9 SCC 65, Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that for determining compensation in cases of fatal accidents involving minors, the appropriate multiplier is 15 and not 18, which was applied in Baby Sakshi Greola’s case(supra) in the context of FAO-4245-2025(O&M) -7- permanent disability. Accordingly, in the present case, multiplier of 15 is liable to be applied for assessing the loss of dependency particularly because deceased was only 8 years old.

#13. However, the income of deceased has rightly been assessed as a skilled person in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karuna Parmar’s case (supra) and Baby Sakshi Greola’s case (supra) and no interference in the same is called for. However, multiplier of 15 has to be applied in view of the guidelines laid down in Devendra Kumar Tripathi’s case (supra).

#14. Learned Tribunal has also rightly added 40% towards future prospects and thereafter, deducted 50% amount towards personal expenses as deceased was a bachelor. The compensation awarded under conventional heads is also in accordance with law laid down in 2017 (16) SCC 680-National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others and 2018 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 333 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others.

#15. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimants is re-assessed as under:- S.No. Under Head

#1. Age of deceased Amount 8 years

#2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.13,120/- per month

#4. Future prospects @ 40% Total income

#5. Number of dependents

#6. Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased (50%) Rs.5,248/- Rs.18,368/- 4 Rs.9,184/-

#7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.9,184/- (Rs.18,368 − Rs.9,184/-)

#8. Annual loss of dependency Rs.1,10,208/- (Rs.9,184/- × 12) FAO-4245-2025(O&M) -8-

#9. Multiplier 15

#10. Loss of dependency Rs.16,53,120/- (Rs.1,10,208/-× 15) loss of Rs.44,000/- each

#11. Compensation consortium

#12. Loss of estate

#13. Funeral expenses Total Compensation Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/- Rs.18,62,120/- Rs.18,62,000/- (rounded off to

#16. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is partly accepted with costs. The compensation payable to respondents No.1 to 4- claimants is reduced from Rs.21,92,744/- to Rs.18,62,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e.

19.01.2023 till realization on the same terms as has been ordered by the Tribunal.

#17. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the award to the appellant-Insurance Company in terms of directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.534 of 2020 titled Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Versus Union of India and others, decided on 16.03.2021 and the Insurance Company shall comply with the directions as issued under Clause (F) of the said judgment.

#18. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

24.07.2026 Priyanka Thakur (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No