The Motor Vehicles Act requires consideration of all dependents in compensation claims following a vehicular death, affirming broader interpretative criteria for determining legal representatives.

Judgment :

RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the claimants against the award dated 29.02.2016 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (FTC) Jashpur, District – Jashpur, C.G. (hereinafter referred to as “the Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.25/2014, awarding total compensation of Rs.7,38,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization in favour of claimant Nos.1 to 4 and 6 & 7 while fastening liability on non-applicant No.1, 2 and 3 jointly and severally while holding non-applicant No.3 primarily liable to pay the compensation.

2. As per averments made in the claim petition, on 14.04.2014, deceased-Sanju Nayak, who was aged about 30 years, earning Rs.6,000/- per month by working as a driver, died in the motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of a Truck bearing registration No.CG-15-AC-0382 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by non-applicant No.2/driver of the offending vehicle, namely, Shankar Singh. At the time of the accident, the deceased was travelling in a Bolero vehicle bearing Registration No. JH01-AT-5784, which was owned by Non-Applicant No. 4 and insured with Non-Applicant No. 5 –National Insurance Company Limited, whereas the offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.1 – C.G. State Civil Supplier Corporation Limited and insured with non-applicant No.3 – Insurance Company.

3. On claim petition being filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.29,25,000/-, the Tribunal, after considering the evidence led by the parties, passed an award as mentioned herein above.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that appellant No.1 – Smt. Rajmuni is the first wife of the deceased Sanju Nayak and appellant Nos.2, 3 & 4 are their children and they all have been awarded compensation by the learned Claims Tribunal. This apart, appellant No.5 – Mamta, who is the another wife of the deceased, was also dependent on the income of the deceased, but she has not been awarded any compensation, however, her children i.e. appellant Nos.6 and 7 have been awarded compensation, as such, appellant No.5 is also entitled for compensation. Similarly, appellant No.8 – Ranjeet Nayak, who is the adult brother of the deceased, is also entitled for compensation. He further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month on notional basis, whereas it should be minimum Rs. 5,468/- per month looking to the nature of work of the deceased and as per the minimum wages provision at the time of accident. He further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects and that, amount awarded by the Tribunal towards other conventional heads is also on lower side, which needs to be enhanced suitably. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, N. Jayasree and Others Vs. Cholamandalam M/s General Insurance Company Limited reported in (2022) 14 SCC 712 and Lalita Vs. M.R. Sunilkumar and Others reported in (2014) SCC OnLine Kar 12825.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company, while admitting that no separate appeal has been filed against the impugned award, submits that the Tribunal considering all the relevant aspects of the matter has