Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Jagdish & Ors.

With the consent of the parties, arguments heard for the purpose of final disposal of the appeal.

The instant Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company u/S.173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act impugning the award dated 15.5.2025 passed by the MACT, Mandleswar in MACC NO. 08/2024, whereby the claim petition preferred by the respondents No. 1 and 2 / claimants was partly allowed and a sum of Rs. 10,84,160/- was awarded as compensation.

The short facts of the case are that the respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a claim petition u/S. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs. 28,05,000/- on account of death of their father in a road traffic accident stating that on 28.10.2023 at about 5.00 PM the father of the respondents No. 1 and 2 Bada S/o. Hiriya was going on motor cycle with Narsingh and Vicky from Patharwada to Indore, and they reached near near Raja Dhaba, Bedia Road, Chitwad, District Khargone offending Truck No. MP09-HF-3765 dashed the motor cycle from the back side, resultantly the father of the claimants fell down and sustained serious grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Narsingh and Vicky also sustained serious injuries. The respondent No. 3 Sadiq was driving the offending truck in a high speed, rashly and negligently. A criminal case was registered vide Crime No. 372/2023 at P.S. Bedia, District Khargone u/S. 279, 337, 304-A of the IPC against the respondent No. 3 and after investigation charge sheet has been filed.

The learned Tribunal by the impugned award dated 15.5.2025 decided the issue of negligence in favour of the claimants and partly allowed the claim petition by assessing the compensation of Rs. 10,84,160/-. The Tribunal held that though the income could not be proved by the claimants, however, the deceased was aged 54 years and at the prevailing time, the minimum wages declared by the Commissioner, Labour Department, was Rs. 9825/- per month and considering the future prospects of 10% the Tribunal assessed the total loss of income of Rs. 9,51,060/- and awarded total compensation of Rs. 10,84,160/-.

Counsel for appellant Insurance company submits that as the deceased was aged 54 years and the claimants are major sons and earning independently, they cannot be treated as dependents on the deceased and they failed to place any evidence on record to substantiate their dependency on the deceased. He submits that in absence of any evidence or proof, the claimants were wrongly considered as dependents upon the deceased for the purpose of compensation under the aid of loss of dependency and, therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error. The counsel heavily relied upon the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 26642/2025 on 24.4.2026 in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. N.P. Joy & Ors. whereby the Supreme Court has held that the claimants, who are major sons, cannot be treated as dependent upon the deceased.

The Counsel further relied upon the judgment delivered by Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 13931/2017 on 23.2.2018 in New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Vinish Jain & Ors. wherein the Supreme Court has held that when the claimants are two major sons and two grand daughters and the major sons have their own source of income and were not dependent on the deceased, there should be deduction of 50% towards the personal expenses.

He relied on the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 71991/2025 on 22.5.2025 in Jitender Kumar & another Vs. Sanjay Prasad & Ors. wherein the Supreme Court has held that when the claimants are not dependent on the deceased, deduction of 50% is to be made to determine the compensation receivable by the claimants.

Counsel for appellant submits that the respondents No. 1 and 2 cannot be considered as dependent on the deceased as they are major sons and earning separately and not entitled for any compensation in the head of loss of dependency. He further submits that if the Court comes to the conclusion that they can be considered eligible for the loss of dependency, 50% of the amount be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Vinish Jain (supra) and Jitender Kumar (supra).

Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 opposed the appeal and submits that the Supreme Court has already decided this issue in the matter o f National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Birender & Ors. (2020) 11 SCC 356 and held that the major married and earning sons of the deceased are also entitled to get compensation with the aid of dependency. he further relied on the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Seema Rani & Ors. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2323/2025 on 11.2.2025 wherein the married major earning sons were granted compensation. He prays for dismissal of the appeal.

After considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for parties and from perusal of the record it appears that the first question involved in this appeal is that Whether the major earning sons of a male deceased can be considered as dependent for the purpose of awarding the compensation under the head of loss of dependency ?

This issue was considered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Birender (supra) and held as under:-

There is no contrary view of the Supreme Court and therefore the judgment delivered in the matter of Birender (supra) is still holding field and the same has been relied in the case of Seema Rani (supra). In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Birender (supra) and Seema Rani (supra) it can be safely held that major earning sons can be considered as dependents for the purpose of assessing the loss of dependency. In the case o f M.P. Joy (supra), the Supreme Court distinguished the case of Birender (supra) on the ground that the deceased was 95 years of age, whereas in the case in hand the deceased was only 54 years old, therefore, the judgment delivered in the matter of Birender (supra) will apply to the present case. The first question is answered that the major earning sons can be considered as dependent for the purpose of awarding the compensation under the head of loss of dependency.

The second question involved in this appeal is that:-In case only the major earning sons of a male deceased are claimants, how much amount should be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. ?

So far as the second question is concerned, that what should be the just and proper deduction towards personal expenses, in view of this court that as the major sons are already earning, one half of the income should be deducted towards peresonal expenses. The Supreme Curt has also held in the matter of Vinish Jain (supra) and Jitender Kumar (supra) that if the claimants are major earning sons, a deduction of 50% is to be made to determine the compensation to be receivable by the claimants. The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Vinish Jain (supra) and Jitender Kumar (supra) are directly applicable to the case in hand and in view of the aforesaid judgments, while determination of the compensation the deduction towards loss of personal and living expenses should be 1/2 (50% of the income of the deceased).

Considering the same, in view of this Court the just and proper assessment of the compensation in the case in hand should be as under:-

In view of this Court the just & proper compensation should be Rs. 8,46,395/- and the respondents No. 1 and 2 are entitled to get this amount instead of Rs. 10,84,160/- awarded by the Tribunal. There will be a reduction of Rs. 2,37,765/- in the compensation amount. Rest of the terms and conditions of the award will remain intact.

With the aforesaid, present appeal is partly allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs. Record of the Tribunal be returned along with the copy of this order.