##PAGE1##

FAO-6471-2018 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-6471-2018 (O&M)

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

......Appellant

vs.

BALJEET SINGH AND ORS.

......Respondents

Reserved on:- 15.05.2026

Pronounced on:- 18.05.2026

Uploaded on:- 20.05.2026

Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO

Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present: Dr. Anjali Bansal, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr. Amandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate

for respondents No.1 to 3.

Respondents No.4 and 5 were proceeded against ex parte

vide order dated 22.07.2019.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated

24.04.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ferozepur

(for short, 'the Tribunal’) in the claim petition filed under Section 166 and 140

of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein the appellant-Insurance company

was fastened with the liability to pay the compensation of Rs.8,17,416/- to the

MOHD AYUB

2026.05.20 14:54

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-6471-2018 (O&M) -2-

claimants along with interest @ 6 % per annum on the ground of quantum of

compensation to be on higher side.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined

to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed

narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced here for the

sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends

that respondents No.1 to 3 are not entitled to any compensation as they were

the married brother and sister of the deceased, therefore, he prays that the

present appeal be allowed and amount of compensation be reduced.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for claimants/respondents No.1 to 3

contends the learned Tribunal has rightly held respondents No.1 to 3 as

dependant upon income of the deceased, therefore, he prays that the present

appeal be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

whole record of this case with their able assistance.

6. A perusal of the award reveals that the contention of learned

counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that claimants being married

brother and sister of deceased are not entitled to compensation is bereft of

merit. Reliance at this stage can be made upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme

Court rendered in Sadhana Tomar & Others v. Ashok Kushwaha & Others,

2025 SCC OnLine 554, wherein, it has been held that the status of a legal

representative is not lost merely because the claimant is married or

independently earning, and such claimants are entitled to compensation being

MOHD AYUB

2026.05.20 14:54

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-6471-2018 (O&M) -3-

legal heirs of the deceased. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced as

under:-

“13. This Court has clarified in the case of Meena Devi v.

Nunu Chand Mahto [(2023) 1 SCC 204], that the objective

of granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988, is to ensure that just and fair compensation is paid to

the aggrieved party. Another question which arose for our

consideration, as for the purpose of loss of dependency, the

deduction of annual income should be 1/3rd or 1/4th, as

there are five claimants. The Tribunal did not consider

appellant Nos.4 and 5, namely, the father and the younger

sister, respectively, of the deceased as dependents, stating

therein that the father was not dependent on the income of

the deceased and since the father is alive, the younger

sister is also not dependent on the income of the deceased.

This Court in Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai

[(1987) 3 SCC 234], observed that a legal representative is

one, who suffers on account of death of a person due to a

motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife,

husband, parent or child.

14. Recently in N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam MS

General Insurance Company Ltd. [(2022) 14 SCC