AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
Heard Shri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Shri Nand Lal Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent-claimants.
By means of the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and award dated 15.06.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MACP No. 48 of 2017 (Shakuntala & Ors. vs. Kamlesh Yadav and Anr.), whereby compensation of Rs.24,86,912/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum has been awarded in favour of the claimant-respondents.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that all the three respondent-claimants are married daughters of the deceased, Champa. The claim petition was instituted seeking compensation on account of the death of Champa, who succumbed to her injuries sustained in a motor accident dated 12.11.2016 while travelling as an occupant in Jeep No. UP 50F 4961.
It is submitted that although married daughters may fall within the ambit of legal representatives of the deceased and may, in an appropriate case, be entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, they cannot claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act merely by virtue of being legal representatives, particularly when they were not dependent upon the deceased. According to learned counsel, being legal representatives, they could, at best, claim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deep Shikha & Anr. vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2025 INSC 675.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimants has submitted that married daughters cannot be deprived of compensation merely on the ground that they were married or were not financially dependent upon the deceased. It is contended that, being legal representatives of the deceased, they are entitled to maintain a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Birender and others, (2020) 11 SCC 356, wherein it has been held that even major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives, have a right to apply for compensation in a case arising out of an accidental death.
Learned counsel has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Seema Rani and others vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ors., 2025 INSC 192, wherein it has been observed that there is no justification for excluding a married daughter from the ambit of compensation. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment in Jitendra Kumar and another vs. Sanjay Prasad and another, AIR Online 2025 SC 758, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even a major married and earning sons of the deceased, being legal representatives, have a right to apply for compensation and that it is the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider such application, irrespective of the fact whether the legal representative was wholly dependent upon the deceased, and that the claim cannot be confined merely to conventional heads.
I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
The controversy involved in the present appeal is confined only to a short question of law, namely, whether a married daughter or married son of a deceased person, who died in an accident, merely by virtue of being a legal representative, is entitled to compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, or whether, in the absence of dependency, such claim is liable to be confined to the extent permissible under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The expression “legal representative”, occurring in Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, came to be considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the first time in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another, AIR 1987 SC 1690. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the expression “legal representative” ordinarily means a person who, in law, represents the estate of the deceased. At the same time, keeping in view the object and purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act, the expression was held to have a wider connotation and was not to be confined to the traditional concept of legal heirship.
The said definition of "legal representative" as discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if considered literally, each and every person, who in either way is related to a deceased person, will come within the meaning of "legal representative" and hence he could be considered for grant of compensation. The said proposition was much clear in a later judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manjuri Bera vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2007) 10 SCC 643 wherein it was held that the expression “legal representative” is wider in scope than the expression “legal heir” and cannot necessarily be confined to the wife, husband, parent or child of the deceased. But in the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also discussed that while considering the claim of a legal representative, a clear distinction shall be drawn between the right to maintain a claim petition and the determination of the quantum of compensation payable to such claimant. It was held that a Court, while determining the quantum of compensation in case of legal representative of a deceased, shall also decide the loss of dependency which has occurred to the legal representative on account of the death of deceased.
Therefore, the concept, which has been repeatedly relied upon by Hon'ble Supreme Court, cannot be ignored while considering the claim for compensation by a legal representative. It is incumbent upon a court to first determine, particularly in case of married sons and married daughters, as to whether they are merely legal representatives or also have suffered any loss of dependency on account of the death of the deceased.
In respect to the issue involved in this case, it will be relevant to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deep Shikha (supra) where the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while reiterating the same view as adopted by earlier judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai (supra) and Manjuri Bera (supra), held that ordinarily, upon marriage, a daughter becomes a member of her matrimonial household and is presumed to be financially supported by her husband or his family, unless the contrary is established by evidence.
Thus, the said sequence of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court since the year 1987 till the year 2025 has clearly held that “legal representative” is one thing and the loss of dependency of legal representative is another aspect, which has to be considered by the Tribunal at the time of determining the compensation. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent-claimants indicates that the compensation to the legal representative has been granted although they were married sons and married daughters by applying the provisions of Section 166 MV Act, but none of the judgments has discussed the scope of legal representative and the entitlement of a legal representative who has suffered loss of dependency as has been thoroughly discussed in Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai (supra), Manjuri Bera (supra) and Deep Shikha (supra).
Therefore, this Court is of the view that above judgments in Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai (supra), Manjuri Bera (supra) and Deep Shikha (supra) will prevail over the judgments relied upon by the respondent-claimants.
In the present case, it was not disputed that the respondent-claimants were not in any way dependent upon the deceased mother. Therefore, once it was proved that the respondent-claimants were merely legal representatives and were not dependent upon the deceased, the compensation awarded to them by applying the provisions of Section 166 MV Act is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manjuri Bera (supra). Thus, this Court is of the view that amount of compensation which the respondent-claimants are entitled shall be determined by the provisions of Section 140 of MV Act. Accordingly, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires modification.
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that, instead of the amount of Rs.24,86,912/-, the respondent-claimants shall be entitled to receive compensation of Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The aforesaid amount shall be apportioned equally amongst all the respondent-claimants.