Seema Rani vs The Oriental Insurance Company Limited

2025 INSC 192 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2323 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C)No. 444 of 2025)

SEEMA RANI & ORS. … APPELLANT(S) VERSUS

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)

ORDER

Time taken for disposal Time taken for disposal Time taken for disposal of the claim petition by of the appeal by the of the appeal in this MACT High Court Court 1 year 6 years 9 months 4 months

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27 th April,

2023 in FAO No.995/2017 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at

Chandigarh, which in turn was preferred against the judgment and order dated 9 th

November, 2016 passed in MACT Case No.44 of 28.10.2015 by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 13 th May, 2015, the RAJNI MUKHI Date: 2025.02.11 18:48:03 IST Reason:

deceased, namely, Dev Raj, aged 50 years, was travelling on his scooter bearing

1 registration No.PB 44A-0962, from his house to village Bhodipura. Near the

house of one Mohinder Singh Nambardar, the offending bus bearing registration

No.PB 04M-9953 collided with the deceased in a rash and negligent manner. Dev

Raj died on the spot. The vehicle was being driven by Respondent No.3, Narinder

Singh, who fled from the spot.

4. A claim petition was filed by the Appellants (Wife, daughter and two sons

of the deceased) before the Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of

Rs.50,00,000/- submitting that the deceased was employed in the Punjab State

Power Corporation Limited, earning more than Rs.50,000/- per month.

5. The Tribunal vide its order, awarded the Appellants an amount of

Rs.24,36,155/- along with interest @ 7% per annum, taking the income of the

deceased as Rs.23,345/- per month. The Tribunal further held that all the four

Appellants are dependants of the deceased.

6. All the Claimant-Appellants and Respondent No.1 - Insurance Company

preferred separate appeals before the High Court. The Claimant-Appellants were

aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded, stating that the Tribunal has

not granted any amount under the head ‘future prospects’. The Insurance

Company was aggrieved by the quantum, stating that Claimant Nos.2 to 4 are

major children of the deceased and, therefore, would not be dependents for the

purpose of compensation. Consequently, a 50% deduction should have been made

instead of 1/4th.

2

7. The High Court, vide the impugned order, partly allowed both the appeals.

The contention of the Claimants for awarding future prospects @ 30% came to be

accepted. On the other hand, the Court accepted the contention of the Insurance

Company that the major sons and the married daughter of the deceased were not

dependent on the deceased for sustenance, and therefore, a deduction of 50% is to

be made. The High Court awarded the Appellants an amount of Rs.24,44,183/-.

8. Dissatisfied, the Claimant-Appellants are now before us. The significant

point of challenge is that the High Court erred in excluding Appellants herein as

dependants of the deceased.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellants. We are unable to

agree with the view taken by the Tribunal on the dependents of the deceased. This

Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender & Ors. 1, had

expounded that major married and earning sons of the deceased, being legal

representatives, have a right to apply for compensation, and the Tribunal must

consider the application, irrespective of whether the representatives are fully

dependent on the deceased or not. The Court went on to conclude that since the

sons, in that case, were earning merely Rs.1,50,000/- per annum, they were

largely dependent on the earnings of the deceased and were staying with her.

10. Adverting to the facts at hand, on a perusal of the statement of Shashi

Kumar, the son of the deceased (Appellant No.2 herein), annexed as Annexure

P6, was working at a petrol pump, while the other son was involved in temporary

1 (2020) 11 SCC 356

3 employment opportunities only. Both of them were residing with the deceased.

In such circumstances, it cannot be said that they were self-sufficient or

independent of the deceased. Similarly, applying the exposition in Birender

(Supra), there is no reason to exclude a married daughter from compensation.

Therefore, in view of this, the High Court erred in excluding these dependants.

11. In view of the aforesaid, the compensation now payable to the Claimant-

Appellants would be recalculated as under:

CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION

S.No Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In Accordance . with:

1. Yearly Income Rs.2,80,140/-

National

2. Future Prospects (30%) 2,80,140 + 84,042 Insurance Co.

(Age being 50) = Rs.3,64,182/- Ltd. v. Pranay

3. Deduction (1/4) Rs.2,73,137/- Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680

4. Multiplier (13) Rs.35,50,781/- Para 42, 52 & 59

5. Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/-

6. Loss of Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/-

7. Loss of Consortium Rs.1,93,600/-

Total Rs. 37,80,681/-

Thus, the difference in compensation is as under :

4

MACT High Court This Court Rs.24,36,000/- Rs.24,44,183/- Rs.37,80,681/-

12. The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The impugned award

dated 9th November, 2016 passed in MACT Case No.44 of 28 th October, 2015 by

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda, as modified vide the impugned

order, stands further modified acc ordingly. Interest is to be paid as awarded by

the Tribunal.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

…………………………………J. (SANJAY KAROL)

………….……………………….J. (PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA) February 11, 2025;

New Delhi.

5