Smt. Kamla Devi v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others

Station Patti Rousil, whereupon First Information Report being Case Crime No. 02 of 2018 came to be registered, under Sections 279, 304-A, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant, while advancing his submissions, has vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal fell in grave error in failing to duly appreciate the fact that the present appellant is none other than the mother of the deceased, and was a rightful claimant before the Tribunal. It has been urged that the Tribunal, while determining the compensation, overlooked the vital circumstance that the appellant is an 2 elderly widow of about 63 years of age, who has no independent means of livelihood and was wholly dependent upon the financial support and care of her deceased son. Learned counsel has further submitted that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family, and, upon his untimely demise, the appellant has been left in a pitiable condition, without any sustainable source of income to meet even her elementary needs of food, shelter, medical care and day-to-day living. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding a meagre sum of ₹10,00,000/- to the appellant which, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be “just compensation” within the meaning of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Learned counsel has strenuously argued that the Tribunal, while apportioning the compensation, acted contrary to the settled principles of law, inasmuch as, it failed to distribute the award equitably amongst claimants, disproportionately favoured the widow and minor son of the deceased, thereby relegating the mother–appellant to a position of near exclusion. Such distribution, it is urged, is neither in consonance with statutory principles nor with the mandate of natural justice, which requires equal and fair consideration of the rights of all dependents of the deceased. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the evolving jurisprudence of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with respect to “consortium” and “loss of dependency,” and submitted that the Tribunal has completely disregarded the head of “filial consortium” recognized authoritative pronouncements, particularly in “Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, reported in (2018) 3 18 SCC 130, wherein it has been categorically held that parents are entitled to compensation on account of the love, affection, care, protection companionship of their children. He submits that despite the appellant being the mother of the deceased and clearly falling within the category of Class-I dependents entitled to such recognition, the Tribunal has failed to award any substantial amount towards this head, thereby causing manifest injustice. It has further been urged that the Tribunal’s approach suffers from non- application of mind, inasmuch as, it has not taken into account the peculiar hardship faced by an aged mother, who, after the demise of her only son, has been left destitute and without any succour. Learned counsel submits that the impugned award, in so far as it pertains to the appellant, is not only inadequate but also arbitrary and liable to be modified by this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the award be suitably enhanced by granting to the appellant a fair and reasonable share of the compensation, commensurate with her status as a dependent, and in recognition of her right to filial consortium, so that she may live the remainder of her life with dignity.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company as well as respondent no.2, the widow of the deceased, has sought to justify the award rendered by the learned Tribunal. It has been urged that the Tribunal, upon a careful appreciation of the evidence on record, rightly held the widow and minor son of the deceased to be the primary dependents and natural heirs, who were directly and substantially 4 affected by the untimely demise of the deceased. Learned counsel contends that the widow, being deprived of her husband’s support, and the minor son, who has lost the benefit of paternal care, affection, and long-term financial sustenance, are entitled to the lion’s share of the compensation. It is further submitted that the Tribunal adopted a fair and reasonable approach while granting a token share to the mother–appellant, recognizing her position as a dependent, but at the same time keeping in view the paramount needs of the widow and the minor son. Learned counsel would argue that the award cannot be termed arbitrary merely because the apportionment was unequal, since the law does not mandate an equal distribution amongst all claimants, but rather a just and reasonable apportionment based on the degree of dependency.

5. It is well-settled that the expression “just compensation” under Section 168 of the Act, 1988 has to be determined in a manner so as to fairly balance the loss suffered by all legal representatives of the deceased. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of “Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another”, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and, subsequently, in the case of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, has laid down guiding principles for computation. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the Court has specifically recognized the right of parents to receive compensation under the head of “filial consortium.” 5

6. In a claim arising under the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation on account of death, it is well-settled that the determination of the proportion in which the awarded compensation is to be apportioned amongst the legal heirs lies within the sound discretion of the Court. Such discretion is, however, not unfettered, but guided by the principle of dependency, namely, the extent to which each legal heir was dependent upon the deceased at the time of his or her death. Accordingly, the Court may direct distribution in unequal shares, keeping in view the factual circumstances and the degree of dependency, so as to ensure just and equitable compensation to the claimants considering the peculiar facts of the case.

7. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the appellant is the mother of the deceased, aged about 63 years, a widow, and without any independent source of livelihood. The deceased was her only son, on whom she was solely dependent for financial and emotional support. Thus, the award of a meagre sum of ₹10,00,000/- in her favour, out of the total compensation of Rs.90,01,776/-, cannot be said to be just or equitable. The Tribunal appears to have disproportionately favoured the widow of the deceased by granting her a sum of about ₹60,00,000/-, while the appellant, who equally falls within the definition of “legal representative” and “dependent,” has been relegated to an almost token amount. This Court is of the view that such apportionment is arbitrary and warrants interference. At the same time, the amount of ₹20,00,000/- awarded to the minor son of the deceased by the Tribunal appears 6 just and reasonable, considering that he is a direct dependent with long-term needs. This Court finds no reason to disturb that share.

8. In view of the foregoing discussion and having regard to the position of the parties as Class–I legal heirs of the deceased under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and considering the peculiar facts of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the share of the appellant– mother, being a dependent and a Class–I heir, merits enhancement from ₹10,00,000/- to ₹20,00,000/-. Correspondingly, the apportionment made in favour of respondent no.2–widow of the deceased, who is also a Class–I heir, is required to be suitably reduced from ₹60,00,000/- to ₹50,00,000/-, so as to maintain parity and equity in distribution. The share of the minor son, likewise a Class–I heir, as fixed by the Tribunal at ₹20,00,000/-, is found to be just and reasonable, and accordingly, the same shall remain undisturbed.

9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 18.10.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/1st Additional District Judge, Haldwani in M.A.C.P. No.146 of 2018 is hereby modified to the extent that the compensation awarded to the appellant–mother of the deceased, being a Class–I heir, is enhanced ₹10,00,000/- to ₹20,00,000/-, the compensation granted to respondent No.2–widow of the deceased, also a Class–I heir, is reduced from ₹60,00,000/- to ₹50,00,000/-, the compensation of ₹20,00,000/- awarded to the minor son, being a Class–I heir, shall remain undisturbed, and the 7 rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization shall remain unaltered. BS BALWAN T SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02f e2eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE 5185F418755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH (Alok Mahra, J.)

25.09.2025 8