National Insurance Company Limited v. Javed And

2. Factual matrix of the case is that the claimants, claimants father and mother alongwith Gulshan were travelling in a car No.UP-78-GN-2117 on 26.06.2021 at 05:30 pm from Farrukhabad to Kanpur. The aforementioned vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, which collided with a Bolero vehicle No.UP-74-P- 4563 parked at road side, resulting in an injury to the parents of the claimants and Gulshan and during treatment in Tirwa Medical College, the claimant's mother Munni Begum died. The FIR regarding the accident was registered by claimant’s father Sharif Khan on 30.06.2021. The claimants father Sharif Khan, also died two months later. The mother of the claimants, Munni Begum, was engaged in manual labour and contributed to the family's income. At the time of her death, she was approximately 51 years old. The tribunal assessed her monthly income @ Rs.8,000/- per month and after adding 10% towards future prospects, has awarded compensation of Rs.10,99,200/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum to the claimants and the appellant being the insurer of the offending vehicle was ordered to indemnify it.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claimants are all major and married sons of deceased, who were not dependent on the deceased, as such, the tribunal has erred by awarding compensation to the claimants. He further submitted that there was no documentary proof of income of the deceased as such, the tribunal erred in determining the compensation on the basis of monthly income of Rs.8000/- of the deceased. It was further argued that the deceased was suffering from liver disease, as such, there was no connection between the injuries sustained by the deceased and her cause of death. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the deceased died due to liver disease, as such, the claimants were not entitled to get any compensation.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

5. It is evident that the claimants have mentioned that the deceased used to do manual labour and contributed to the income of the family and was the sole bread earner of 2 FAFO No. 1955 of 2025 the family. The claim petition discloses that the claimants are the son of the deceased who were 30 years, 28 years, 30 and 18 years, respectively at the time of the filing of the petition. There is no evidence on record to prove that the deceased was suffering from liver disease and the accident, was not the immediate cause of her death. As per the evidence on record, the deceased died two days after the accident on 28.06.2021. It is also on record that the deceased was admitted to the Government Medical College, Kannauj on 26.06.2021 for treatment of injuries sustained in the accident. The police has also submitted charge-sheet against the offending driver in Case Crime No.346 of 2021, PS Gursahaiganj, District Kannauj u/s 279,338,304A and 427 IPC, which proves that the deceased sustained injuries in the accident and later on died due to these injuries.

6. Further, the claimants have specifically submitted that the deceased used to earn through manual labour and contributed towards the family income, along with the claimants. The claimants were dependent on her income. PW-1 Javed specifically deposed that the deceased used to earn Rs.2,000/- per week and her youngest brother was dependent on his mother’s income. The tribunal has believed the above evidence and has, accordingly, assessed the compensation by taking income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month. The tribunal have also awarded future prospects at the rate of 10% per month.

7. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Birender & Others (2020) 11 SCC 356 has held that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the legal representative concerned was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only.

8. The tribunal has considered the issue elaborately and has recorded a finding that the deceased was earning and the claimants were dependent on her income, as such, it cannot be said that the claimants are not entitled to the compensation only due to the fact that they were major. It is also apparent that the claimant no.4 Nazim was only 18 years old at the time of the filing of the petition and, as such, he cannot be denied compensation on the death of his mother.

9. This Court is of the opinion that the tribunal has not erred in awarding the compensation to the claimants in the facts and circumstances of the case.

10. Accordingly, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.

11. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.

12. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is affirmed.

13. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. October 13, 2025 Himanshu (Sandeep Jain,J.) HIMANSHU YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Factual matrix of the case is that the claimants, claimants father and mother alongwith Gulshan were travelling in a car No.UP-78-GN-2117 on 26.06.2021 at 05:30 pm from Farrukhabad to Kanpur. The aforementioned vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, which collided with a Bolero vehicle No.UP-74-P- 4563 parked at road side, resulting in an injury to the parents of the claimants and Gulshan and during treatment in Tirwa Medical College, the claimant's mother Munni Begum died. The FIR regarding the accident was registered by claimant’s father Sharif Khan on 30.06.2021. The claimants father Sharif Khan, also died two months later. The mother of the claimants, Munni Begum, was engaged in manual labour and contributed to the family's income. At the time of her death, she was approximately 51 years old. The tribunal assessed her monthly income @ Rs.8,000/- per month and after adding 10% towards future prospects, has awarded compensation of Rs.10,99,200/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum to the claimants and the appellant being the insurer of the offending vehicle was ordered to indemnify it.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claimants are all major and married sons of deceased, who were not dependent on the deceased, as such, the tribunal has erred by awarding compensation to the claimants. He further submitted that there was no documentary proof of income of the deceased as such, the tribunal erred in determining the compensation on the basis of monthly income of Rs.8000/- of the deceased. It was further argued that the deceased was suffering from liver disease, as such, there was no connection between the injuries sustained by the deceased and her cause of death. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the deceased died due to liver disease, as such, the claimants were not entitled to get any compensation.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

5. It is evident that the claimants have mentioned that the deceased used to do manual labour and contributed to the income of the family and was the sole bread earner of 2 FAFO No. 1955 of 2025 the family. The claim petition discloses that the claimants are the son of the deceased who were 30 years, 28 years, 30 and 18 years, respectively at the time of the filing of the petition. There is no evidence on record to prove that the deceased was suffering from liver disease and the accident, was not the immediate cause of her death. As per the evidence on record, the deceased died two days after the accident on 28.06.2021. It is also on record that the deceased was admitted to the Government Medical College, Kannauj on 26.06.2021 for treatment of injuries sustained in the accident. The police has also submitted charge-sheet against the offending driver in Case Crime No.346 of 2021, PS Gursahaiganj, District Kannauj u/s 279,338,304A and 427 IPC, which proves that the deceased sustained injuries in the accident and later on died due to these injuries.

6. Further, the claimants have specifically submitted that the deceased used to earn through manual labour and contributed towards the family income, along with the claimants. The claimants were dependent on her income. PW-1 Javed specifically deposed that the deceased used to earn Rs.2,000/- per week and her youngest brother was dependent on his mother’s income. The tribunal has believed the above evidence and has, accordingly, assessed the compensation by taking income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month. The tribunal have also awarded future prospects at the rate of 10% per month.

7. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Birender & Others (2020) 11 SCC 356 has held that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the legal representative concerned was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only.

8. The tribunal has considered the issue elaborately and has recorded a finding that the deceased was earning and the claimants were dependent on her income, as such, it cannot be said that the claimants are not entitled to the compensation only due to the fact that they were major. It is also apparent that the claimant no.4 Nazim was only 18 years old at the time of the filing of the petition and, as such, he cannot be denied compensation on the death of his mother.

9. This Court is of the opinion that the tribunal has not erred in awarding the compensation to the claimants in the facts and circumstances of the case.

10. Accordingly, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.

11. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.

12. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is affirmed.

13. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. October 13, 2025 Himanshu (Sandeep Jain,J.) HIMANSHU YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad