##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

I. FAO-1529-2005

Harkewal Jit Singh and Another …..Appellants

Vs.

Gurjant Singh and Others .….Respondents

II. FAO-1530-2005

Harkewal Jit Singh and Another …..Appellants

Vs.

Gurjant Singh and Others .….Respondents

Date of Decision.: 27.04.2026

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. J.S. Cooner, Advocate for

respondent No.2.

Mr. D.K. Dogra, Advocate for

respondent No.3- Insurance Company.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

These two appeals arise out of a common award dated

04.01.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala

(hereina/er referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby two claim pe33ons

filed by the same appellants–claimants, seeking compensa3on on account

of the death of their parents, namely Mehar Singh and Mahinder Kaur,

were disposed of by awarding a sum of ₹50,000/- each under Sec3on 140

of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. The undisputed facts emerging from the record are that on

NEETIKA TUTEJA

2026.04.28 14:48

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

FAO-1529-2005

FAO-1530-2005

08.03.2003, Mehar Singh along with his wife Mahinder Kaur was travelling

from Rajpura to Ambala Can on a scooter driven by Mehar Singh. At about

03:00 PM, near Kingfisher Tourist Complex, Ambala, a bus bearing

registra3on No. HR-37-0001, driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and

negligent manner, came from the Chandigarh side and struck the scooter

while veering towards the extreme le/ side of the road. As a result of the

impact, both Mehar Singh and Mahinder Kaur sustained fatal injuries and

succumbed thereto. An FIR was duly registered.

3. The appellants, being the major sons of the deceased,

ins3tuted two separate claim pe33ons under Sec3on 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act against the driver, owner, and insurer of the offending vehicle.

4. The Tribunal returned a categorical finding that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. However,

while assessing compensa3on, it held that since the claimants were major

sons and not dependent upon the income of the deceased, they were not

en3tled to compensa3on under the head of loss of dependency.

Consequently, a sum of ₹50,000/- each was awarded under Sec3on 140 of

the Act.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the award on

the ground that the Tribunal erred in restric3ng compensa3on merely on

the basis that the claimants were not dependent upon the deceased. It is

contended that even non-dependent legal representa3ves are en3tled to

compensa3on, and the Tribunal was obligated to assess just compensa3on

under all permissible heads. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Na(cid:3)onal Insurance Company Limited vs.

Birender and Others, (2020) 11 SCC 356, wherein it has been held that legal

representa3ves, even if not dependent, are en3tled to maintain a claim

pe33on and are not confined merely to conven3onal heads of

compensa3on.

Page No. 2 of 5 Pages

NEETIKA TUTEJA

2026.04.28 14:48

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

FAO-1529-2005

FAO-1530-2005

6. Learned counsel for the insurance company has not been able

to controvert the aforesaid legal posi3on.

7. Thus, the primary issue that arises for considera3on is as to

whether the claimants, being major sons and not financially dependent

upon the deceased, are en3tled to compensa3on beyond the amount

awarded under Sec3on 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act?

8. The issue is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

in Birender’s case (supra) has categorically held that the expression “legal

representa3ve” under Sec3on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act has a wider

connota3on and is not restricted to dependents alone. The Tribunal is duty-

bound to award “just compensa3on” irrespec3ve of dependency.

9. Thus, the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal in limi3ng

compensa3on solely on the ground of absence of dependency is legally

unsustainable and contrary to seled law.

10. Fur