Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a motor accident claim petition filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhule. One Sharubala Ravikiran Zol died in a road accident on 09.02.2012 while travelling with her husband. Originally, the claim petition was filed by her husband Ravikiran and son Tejas. During pendency, the husband died, and the claim was prosecuted by the deceased's son Tejas and daughter Urjja. The Tribunal, by judgment and award dated 07.04.2017, awarded total compensation of Rs.42,27,824/- inclusive of no-fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, with interest at 8% per annum. The Tribunal computed the compensation following the guidelines in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation. The deceased's monthly income after deductions was undisputed at Rs.46,623/-. The insurer, Reliance General Insurance Company, filed the present first appeal challenging the award solely on the ground that the major son and daughter, who were not dependent on the income of the deceased, could not claim loss of dependency under Section 166 of the Act. The insurer relied on New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Anand Pal, New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Jaibai, National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma, and Farzana Abbas Bhai v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, arguing that independent and earning siblings cannot be treated as dependents. The claimants contended that Anand Pal did not consider the earlier Supreme Court decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Birender, which held that major married and earning children of the deceased, as legal representatives, have a right to apply for compensation irrespective of dependency. They also relied on the recent Supreme Court decision in Seema Rani v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd which reiterated Birender and permitted recalculation of compensation if heads like future prospects and consortium were omitted. The High Court framed the issue whether major married and earning children of the deceased, being legal representatives, have a right to apply for compensation irrespective of their dependency status. The Court noted that Anand Pal had not referred to Birender and that the subsequent decision in Seema Rani reiterated the Birender principle. Accordingly, the Court held that even major married and earning children in the capacity of legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation. The Court further observed that even in the absence of an appeal by the claimants, it is the duty of the court to assess just and fair compensation. The Tribunal had not considered future prospects and various consortium heads as per Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance. The Court recalculated the compensation by adding 15% future prospects to the monthly income of Rs.46,623/-, resulting in Rs.53,616.45. Applying a multiplier of 11 for the age of 52 years, the loss of dependency was computed at Rs.70,77,371.40. Deducting one-third for personal expenses, the amount became Rs.47,18,247.60. The Court added Rs.80,000/- towards filial consortium (Rs.40,000/- each) and Rs.30,000/- for loss of estate and funeral expenses. The final compensation was determined at Rs.48,28,247.60 inclusive of the award under no-fault liability. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Legal Representatives - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 166 and 140 - Major married and earning children of deceased, as legal representatives, have right to apply for compensation irrespective of dependency status; Tribunal must consider application irrespective of whether legal representative fully dependent; conflict between New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Anand Pal and National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Birender resolved by later Seema Rani v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd which reiterated Birender. Held that insurer's appeal on dependency ground fails and legal representatives can claim loss of dependency (Paras 5-8). B) Motor Vehicles - Quantum - Future Prospects and Consortium - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 166 and 140 - In absence of appeal by claimants, court has duty to assess just and fair compensation; compensation recalculated by adding 15% future prospects for deceased aged 52, filial consortium of Rs.40,000 each to two claimants, loss of estate and funeral expenses of Rs.30,000, and applying one-third deduction for personal expenses. Held final compensation determined at Rs.48,28,247.60 inclusive of no-fault liability under Section 140 (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether major married and earning children of the deceased being legal representatives, have right to apply for compensation irrespective of their dependency status on the deceased?
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; compensation recalculated to Rs.48,28,247.60 inclusive of no-fault liability; liability of insurer and owner affirmed.
Law Points
- Major married and earning children of deceased
- being legal representatives
- have right to apply for compensation irrespective of dependency status
- Tribunal must consider application irrespective of whether legal representative fully dependent on deceased
- Even in absence of appeal by claimants
- court has duty to assess just and fair compensation
- Future prospects and consortium heads must be included as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram
- For deceased aged 52
- 15% future prospects added to income
- Multiplicand of 11 applicable
- One-third deduction for personal expenses
- Filial consortium of Rs.40
- 000 each awarded
- Loss of estate and funeral expenses of Rs.30
- 000 awarded
- Compensation under no-fault liability under Section 140 must be included
