Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 2616
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ALKA SARIN, J.
Sukhpal Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Nirmal Gour & Ors. – Respondents
FAO-8232 of 2015 (O&M)
Decided On : 30-01-2023
Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Narula, Advocate; For the Appellant
Mr. Rajnish Malhotra, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Claimant-Appellant sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the dependent legal representative of the deceased, asserting entitlement based on Supreme Court precedents. The Tribunal initially awarded Rs.82,000/-, which was challenged on grounds of dependency and entitlement. (Paras 2-3)
(B) Legal Representative - The court clarified that major married sons are also legal representatives entitled to claim compensation irrespective of dependency, supported by the principle established in various Supreme Court judgments. (Paras 11-14)
Facts of the case:
The claimant-Appellant is the daughter of the deceased, whose accident occurred in 2013. The Tribunal had awarded compensation for no-fault liability, medical expenses, and funeral costs, totaling Rs.82,000/-, based on the argument that she was not a dependent.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the revised compensation amount would total Rs.3,68,200/- considering statutory norms and precedent law, to be paid with 7.5% interest from the date of filing.
Issues: The court framed the issue around whether the claimant-Appellant qualifies as a dependent legal representative entitled to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that legal representatives, even if not fully dependent, are entitled to compensation, emphasizing the scope of 'legal representative' as defined by law.
Result: Appeal allowed; compensation enhanced to Rs.3,68,200/- with interest.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appeal is against a tribunal award. (Para 1) |
| 2. dispute over claimant's status as legal representative. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. compensation calculation according to legal standards. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. legal representatives' rights to compensation established. (Para 7) |
| 5. appeal granted; compensation award modified. (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT
Alka Sarin, J. (Oral)
The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-Appellant against the award dated 09.10.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'). The factum of the accident, in the present case, is not in dispute and hence the facts are not being adverted to.
2. The only issue in the present case is whether the claimant-Appellant would be considered as a legal representative and dependent of the deceased.
3. Learned counsel for the claimant-Appellant would contend that the Tribunal has only awarded an amount of Rs.82,000/- (Rs.50,000/- on account of 'no fault liability', Rs.12,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenses) on the ground that the daughter could not be considered as a dependent. Learned counsel for the claimant-Appellant has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation , Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & Anr. [1987 (3) SCC 234] and N. Jayasree & Ors. v. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021 (4) RCR (Civil) 642] to contend that the issue is no longer res intra and even a mother-in-law of the deceased has been held to be a legal representative and entitled for compensation. Learned counsel for the claimant-Appellant has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Birender & Ors. [2020 (11) SCC 356] to contend that even major married and earning sons of the deceased, being legal representatives, have a right to apply for compensation in case of accidental death. Learned counsel for the claimant-Appellant has further contended that in view of the fact that no future prospects are to be given keeping in view the age of the deceased as 62 years, this Court instead of remanding the matter may determine the compensation to be paid as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 121]; National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680]; Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130]; and N. Jayasree (supra).
4. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 has contended that the amount has rightly been awarded by the Tribunal and that there is no scope of enhancement.
5. Heard.
6. In the present case, the following compensation was awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant-Appellant :
| Sr. No. | Heads | Compensation Awarded |
| 1 | No fault liability | Rs.50,000/- |
| 2 | Medical expenses | Rs.12,000/- |
| 3 | Funeral expenses | Rs.20,000/- |
| 4 | Total Compensation | Rs.82,000/- |
|
| Interest | 7.5% per annum |
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Birender (supra) has held as under :
"12. The legal representatives of the deceased could move application for compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section 166(1). The major married son who is also earning and not fully dependant on the deceased, would be still covered by the expression "legal representative" of the deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera (supra) had expounded that liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the concerned legal representative. Notably, the expression "legal representative" has not been defined in the Act. In Manjuri Bera (supra), the Court observed thus :
"9. In terms of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 166 of the Act in case of death, all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased become entitled to compensatio
