$~43

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Decided on: 12.11.2025

+ MAC.APP. 606/2025

BALESH DEVI & ORS. .....Appellants

Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate.

versus

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE

CO. LTD. & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Ms. Suman Bagga & Ms. Mouli Sharma, Advocates for R-1.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)

1. By way of this appeal, the appellants seek enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“the Tribunal”] in MACT No. 66/2019, titled Balesh Devi & Ors. vs. Mujahid @ Mujji & Ors., vide the impugned award dated 05.12.2024, under which the appellants were granted Rs. 40,25,069/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

2. The claim before the Tribunal arose from the death of Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma in a road accident on 02.11.2018. The claim was filed by eight persons, namely his wife, five daughters, one son, and his father.

3. Mr. Anshuman Bal, learned counsel for the appellants, urges a single ground of challenge – that the Tribunal erroneously excluded three of the claimants, Ms. Sangita Sharma (appellant No.2), Ms. Sandhya Sharma (appellant No.3), and Ms. Sonika Sharma (appellant No.4), from the list of dependents. The exclusion was on the ground that they were married daughters of the deceased and were, therefore, not financially dependent on him. Consequently, Mr. Bal submits, the Tribunal incorrectly deducted one-fourth of the deceased’s loss of earnings for personal expenses, whereas, considering all eight dependents, the deduction ought to have been one-fifth. A further consequence of this error, he contends, is that the loss of consortium was awarded only to five dependents, rather than to all eight.

4. I have heard Mr. Anshuman Bal and Ms. Suman Bagga, learned counsel for Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [“the Insurance Company”], on this issue.

5. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute, including, inter alia, that the deceased was survived by his wife, five daughters, one son, and his father.

6. The question of whether married daughters can be excluded from the list of dependents, has already been decided in favor of the appellants, by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ram Charan & Ors. v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.1 In the said judgment, this Court examined the relevant authorities on this point, including the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender2, the judgment of the Kerala High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shalumol3, and the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Gangappa & Ors4.

7. In the judgment of the Supreme Court in Birender, the Court held that major married and earning sons of the deceased, as legal representatives, have the right to claim compensation, irrespective of whether they were fully dependent on the deceased. Similarly, the Kerala High Court in Shalumol held that both married sons and daughters retain their dependency on the deceased, and are entitled to compensation. This principle was also followed by the Karnataka High Court in Gangappa.

8. This Court, in Ram Charan, expressed its agreement with the aforesaid views of the Kerala High Court and the Karnataka High Court in the following terms:

“13.This Court is in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Kerala High Court and Karnataka High Court in this regard. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that the loss of other forms of support endured by the Appellants is immeasurable. By virtue of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being a welfare legislation, there is no cogent reason to deny the Appellants from obtaining compensation for their loss of dependence, regardless of the nature or form of the dependence. There cannot be any discrimination between married sons and married daughters and hence both of them are entitled for the compensation under the head ‘Loss of Dependency’. Based on the above findings,