IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT ON THE 17th OF JULY, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 4127 of 2025 ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Versus KANCHAN JATAV AND OTHERS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance :

Shri Aditya Narayan Sharma - Advocate for the appellant/Insurance Company.

Shri Sumit Tiwari – Advocate for the respondents.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

With the consent of parties, mater is heard finally.

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1973 has been filed against award dated 11.02.2025 passed in MACC No.927/2020 by 23^rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur; whereby the claim filed by the respondents/claimants has been allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Uday Jatav used to run a flower shop near Sadar Chopati. On 09.01.2020 at about 4:30 in the evening he was going to take water for his shop, non-applicant No.1 by driving his car bearing registration No.MP-20-CH-5678 rashly and negligently hit the deceased due to which he sustained injuries in his Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA legs, hands, head, chest, waist and other parts of the body. He was taken to hospital by 108 Ambulance where he was declared dead by the doctors.

3. Thereafter, brother and sister of the deceased filed a claim petition before the tribunal contending that the deceased used to run a flower shop and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He was the only earning member of the family and after his death, his brother and sister being dependent on the deceased are suffering financial crises.

4. Non-applicants No.1 and 2 being driver and owner respectively have not contested the case before the claims Tribunal and they were proceeded ex-parte by the Tribunal.

5. Appellant/Insurance Company denied the averments in its written statement and pleaded that at the time of incident driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence and the vehicle was being driven in contravention of the conditions of insurance policy, hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition against the insurance company. It is further submitted that the alleged vehicle has been implanted in the case.

6. Learned tribunal after framing the issues and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the rival parties, awarded a sum of Rs.9,92,000/- to be paid by the non-applicants jointly and severally. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, appellant/Insurance Company has filed the present Appeal for exoneration from the liability saddled upon the company by the tribunal.

7. The appellant has challenged the impugned award mainly on the ground that the claimants are not the dependents of the deceased. It is Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA further argued that the compensation of award by the tribunal is on higher side in absence of any cogent evidence and material. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that there is difference between legal representative and claimants to claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1988’) It is further contended that though in the provisions of Section 166, the word/phrase ‘legal representative’ has been used but that is only to file application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 but not to get compensation, unless the applicants are dependent on the deceased. Further it is submitted that dependency is paramount consideration for granting compensation. It is also contended that in celebrated judgments of the Hon’ble Apex court in the cases of Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 the factor of dependency is the sole basis for assessment and calculation of compensation.

8. Further, i