Bombay High Court

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.versusASHOK MAHADEO KALASKAR AND ORS.

Decided: 16 September 2026
Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

The brother is a legal representative and dependent, entitled to the full compensation award, and the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The appellant United India Insurance Company appealed against a compensation award granted to the brother of the deceased motor accident victim, Mr. Rangarao, under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal had treated the brother as a dependent and calculated loss of dependency at 50% of the deceased's income, applying a multiplier of 11 and adding various heads of compensation. The insurer argued that the brother was not dependent and that the Tribunal erred in its income calculations, deductions, and multiplier. The Court examined the evidence of dependency, the statutory definition of a legal representative under Section 166(c), and the methodology for quantifying loss of dependency as laid down in Supreme Court precedents. It held that the brother qualifies as a legal representative and has demonstrated dependency, thereby affirming his entitlement to compensation. The Court modified the award, increased the compensation to Rs.13,84,556, ordered the insurer to pay the balance after deducting the amount already paid, and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a brother of the deceased is a legal representative entitled to claim compensation under Section 166(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Whether the claimant is dependent on the deceased's income for purposes of loss of dependency compensation.
Whether the Tribunal correctly calculated the deceased's income, applied the appropriate multiplier, and included the proper heads of compensation.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 2(11)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 166, 168

Subjects

motor accident
compensation
dependency
legal representative
Motor Vehicles Act
insurance claim
loss of estate
multiplier

Judgment

HMK 15. FA-1919-2005-Judgment.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1919 OF 2005
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1962 OF 2005

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., )
R/o. Bharati Vidyapeeth Bhavan, )
5th Floor, L.B.S. Road, Pune-30. ) ...Appellant/Applicant
(Orig. Opponents No.3)

Versus

1. Ashok Mahadeo Kalaskar, )
Age 35 yrs, Occup. Nil, )
R/at 64/2/3, H.B. Colony )
Gorakshen Road, Akola. )

2. Krishna D. Jaigude, )
Age adult, Occup. Business, )
R/at Sabale Chawl, Hanuman Road )
Service Road, Vile Parle, )
Mumbai-57. )

3. Ashok Maruti Salvi, )
Age Adult, Occup. Business, )
R/at B/6/31, Dnyaneshwar Nagar )
Shivadi, Wadala, Mumbai-31. )

4. Indira Arvind Londhe, )
Age 48 yrs, Occup. Household, )
R/at Post Anjansindhi, )
Tq. Dhaman Gaon, Dist. Amravati. )

5. Prabha Laxman Javalekar, )
Age 45 yrs, Occup. Household, )
R/at Flat No.27, Dimension )
House, United Western HSG Soc. )
Digitally signed
SEEMA by SEEMA
KSHITIJ
KSHITIJ YELKAR
Date:
YELKAR 2026.09.23
14:40:12 +0530
1 of 11
HMK 15. FA-1919-2005-Judgment.doc

Karvenage, Pune-32. )
(Deleted as per order dated 03.08.2006)

6. Shobha Sadanand Khadkulkar, )
Age 42 yrs, Occup. Household, )
R/at Besera HSG. Soc. Gorakshan )
Road, Akola. )

7. Asha Nandkumr Somwanshi, )
Age 38 yrs, Occup. Household, )
R/at P.M.C. Colony, Sambhhaji )
Nager, Wakadewadi, Pune-5. )
(Deleted as per order dated 03.08.2006)

8. Usha Avinash Saswadkar, )
Age 32 yrs, Occup. Household, )
R/at Post Loni Kalbhor, Tal. Haveli )
Dist. Pune. ) ...Respondents
(Respdt. No.1 is orig. Applicant
Respdt. Nos.2 to 8 are orig.
Opponents No.1,2,4,5,6,7 & 8
respectively)
__________________________________________________________________

Mr. Sachin Raje for the Appellant/Applicant.
Mr. Makarand Shinde a/w. Mr. G. P. Shinde for Respondent No. 1.
__________________________________________________________________

CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.

DATED : 16th SEPTEMBER 2026

JUDGMENT :

1. The only issue canvassed in this Appeal is entitlement of
compensation by a brother of the deceased. For the reason, he is not
dependent upon the income of the deceased Mr. Rangarao. Original

2 of 11
HMK 15. FA-1919-2005-Judgment.doc

Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 are the married sisters of Claimant and they
have given no objection in favour of the Claimant (para 5 of the
judgment). The submission is that when there is no evidence about
dependency, the Tribunal ought not to have considered the principle of
dependency. The Tribunal has considered the Gross Total Income of the
deceased Mr. Rangarao as Rs.12,000/- and treated 50% deduction
towards personal expenses and considered 50% as a loss of dependency
to the claimant. This portion of the Award is under challenge on behalf
of the Insurance Company.

2. Considering the limited issue involved, I have heard learned
Advocate Mr. Raje for the Appellant and learned Advocate Mr. Shinde
for the Respondent No.1-Claimant. With their assistance, I have gone
through the record.

3. The deceased was travelling on a scooter, whereas, the bus insured
with the Appellant gave a dash on 26 th July, 1999. The deceased Mr.
Rangarao died. He was working in Gadge Maharaj Mahavidyalaya,
Murtizapur, Akola as a Superintendent. To prove his income from salary,
a witness Mr. Shrikant is examined. He has proved the salary certificate.
The details are as follows :-

Sr. No. Particulars Amount
1) Basic Pay Rs. 10,100/-
2) D.A. Rs. 2,222/-
3) H.R.A. Rs. 505/-
4) Scooter Allowances Rs. 200/-
Total Rs. 13,027/-
3 of 11
HMK 15. FA-1919-2005-Judgment.doc

4. The Tribunal has deducted the scooter allowance and HRA and
considered the Gross Total Income as Rs.12,000/-.

5. In respect of dependency, learned Advocate Mr. Raje has invited
my attention to the evidence of the Claimant. During cross-
examination, he has answered that “I can earn my labour for my own
maintenance”. According to Mr. Raje, if such answer is given, it cannot
be said that he is depending upon the income of the deceased.

6. Whereas, the learned Advocate Mr. Shinde has invited my
attention to the answer given during chief-examination. He has said, “I
was depending on the income of the deceased Mr. Rangarao”.

7. To buttress his submission, Mr. Raje has relied upon the
observations in case of Manjuri Bera vs. Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd. & Anr.1. The issue involved in that Appeal was whether married
daughter of the deceased can claim compensation under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“The M.V. Act”). It was pleaded on behalf
of the Insurance Company that a married daughter cannot be treated as
dependent upon the deceased. The said plea was accepted and the claim
petition was dismissed. This decision was confirmed by the High Court
when the matter went to Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court has interpreted the meaning of “legal representative” and
“heir”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also considered the provisions of
Section 140 of the Act being no fault liability and Section 166 of the
Act, being the fault liability. Similarly, in paragraph 10 of the aforesaid

1 AIR 2007 SCC 1474

4 of 11
HMK 15. FA-1919-2005-Judgment.doc

decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the provisions of
Section 2(11) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). It is inclusive in
character and the scope is wide and it is not confined to legal heirs only.
Whereas, as per the provisions of Section 166(c), when there is a death, a
claim petition can be filed by all or any of the legal representatives of the
deceased. In paragraph 10 of the said decision, the observations in case
of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad vs.
Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & Anr. 2 are referred. A legal representative is
the one who suffers on account of death of a person due to motor
vehicle accident and need not necessarily be wife, husband, parent or
child. As per Section 166(c) of the Act, it is a legal representative who
can file an application, as observed, he need not be a legal heir.

8. This observation is further clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Birender & Ors. 3 It was
a case of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The
Claimants were major sons of the deceased and they were married.
Deceased was their mother who was government employee and
Claimants/sons were working as agricultural labourers and they were
largely depending upon earning of their mother. They were entitled to
apply for compensation but quantum of compensation would depend
upon their dependency on the deceased. There is distinction between
“right to apply for compensation” and “entitlement to compensation”.
The observations of Manjuri Bera (supra) were also considered.

9. If we consider these judgments, it is clear locus to apply for
2 1987 ACJ 561 SC
3 (2020) 11 SCC 356

5 of 11
HMK 15. FA-1919-2005-Judgment.doc

compensation is one aspect and entitlement to compensation is another
aspect. It is true, the provisions of Section 166 lays down categories of
persons who can apply for compensation. Whereas, Section 168 of the
M.V. Act lays down the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal and
also casts an obligation on the Tribunal to determine amount of just
compensation. It also casts an obligation on the Tribunal to specify :-

a) persons entitled to compensation;
b) who shall pay the compensation.

10. If we read both the provisions together, we may find that the
persons who fall within purview of legal representatives can apply for
compensation and if they satisfy the test of entitlement, then only they
can be awarded as compensation. There are various parameters for
ascertaining quantum of compensation. Ultimately, if it is a death claim,
then apart from ascertaining income of the deceased, next question to be
determined is “whether deceased is spending entire income on himself
or spending some part for him and spending some part on others”. These
“other” are called as dependents. In order to have uniformity, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.4 and Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.5 has laid down categories of
dependents, percentage of personal expenses and loss of income to the
dependents. This is the stage where the Tribunal has to determine the
persons who are dependents. Who are the dependents is a question of

4 (2017) 16 SCC 680
5 (2009) 6 SCC 121

6 of 11
HMK 15. FA-1919-2005-Judgment.doc

facts. Once the dependents are identified, the Tribunal has to determine
personal expenses and loss of income as per guidelines given by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.

11. On this background, if evidence is scrutinized, we may find that
the legal representative can apply for compensation. He need not be
heir. In this Appeal, Claimant is brother of the deceased. Certainly, he
can represent estate of the deceased. So first test under Section 166(c) of
the M.V. Act is satisfied.

12. Second test is whether he has suffered on account of death of the
deceased. Considering this analogy, if we go through the facts, it is clear
that the Claimant is the brother of the deceased. He has said that he was
depending on the income of the deceased Mr. Rangarao. No doubt, he
has answered that “I can earn my labour for home maintenance”, it
cannot be said that he has not fulfilled the test of dependency. The
physical capacity to earn is one aspect and dependency on the income of
the deceased is another aspect. Even the relatives of the deceased are
having physical capacity to earn, does it mean to say that they are not to
be treated as dependent ? The answer is certainly no. The relationship of
the deceased with Claimants is not disputed. In spite of the physical
capacity to earn, when he says that he is depending on the income of the
deceased, he has fulfilled the test laid down in the case of Gujarat Road
Transport Corporation (supra). Except giving a suggestion that he was
not dependent. I do not find any answer in the cross-examination which
weakens his evidence.

7 of 11
HMK 15. FA-1919-2005-Judgment.doc

13. Mr. Raje tried to submit that loss of dependency is one aspect and
loss of estate is another aspect. His submission is that the Claimant is
entitled to loss of estate. I am not agreeable to this submission also. On
facts, the Claimant has proved his dependency on the income of the
deceased. Hence, the ground argued before me by Mr. Raje is not
acceptable. There is no merit in the Appeal.

14. The submissions made on behalf of Respondent No.1 about
incorrect calculation of compensation need to be considered. He made
the following submissions :-

a) First, the multiplier of 11 is wrongly considered. It ought
to have been 13 on the basis of the observations in case of
Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma (supra). According
to him, the age of the deceased deposed by the Claimant is
50 years. It has come in Paragraph No.2 of his evidence,
whereas, in post-mortem report, it is mentioned as 50
years. It is there in Paragraph No. 7 of the post-mortern
report. Whereas, in the inquest panchanama on page no. 1,
his age is mentioned as 51 years. The Tribunal has
considered the age mentioned in the inquest panchanama
while considering the multiplier. According to Mr. Raje,
this is correct. Whereas, Mr. Shinde relied upon the
observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sunita & Ors. vs. Vinod Singh & Ors.6 in Paragraph No.
11, there is a discussion about considering the age

6 2025 ACJ 1147

8 of 11
HMK 15. FA-1919-2005-Judgment.doc

mentioned in the post-mortern report being on the basis of
scientific assessment. In this case, the Tribunal was wrong
in considering the age of the deceased as 51 years, because
there is a reference of his age as 50 years in other part of
the evidence, which is not considered by the Tribunal. So,
the multiplier has to be 13.

b) According to him, the income ought to have been Rs.
12,827/- (Rs. 13,027/- minus Rs. 200/-) instead of Rs.
12,000/-. Only the Profession Tax of Rs. 200/- can be
deducted and not the scooter allowance and the HRA
which is done by the Tribunal. Even though, in the salary
certificate at Exhibit-41, Profession Tax is not mentioned,
according to Mr. Shinde, it ought to have been Rs. 200/- as
per the rates prevailing at that time. He is right. So, the
income from salary ought to have been Rs. 12,827/-
instead of Rs. 12,000/-.

c) According to him, there ought to be enhancement @ 10%
in every 3 years, as observed in case of Pranay Sethi
(supra), in paragraph 61(xiii), he is right. In view of that,
the compensation has to be enhanced.

(d) According to Mr. Raje, the amount of income tax has to be
deducted. Respondent No. 1 to satisfy the Tribunal at the
time of withdrawal about the payment of income tax, then
the Tribunal can permit him to withdraw the amount
accordingly.
9 of 11
HMK 15. FA-1919-2005-Judgment.doc

15. In view of that, the Award dated 05 th October, 2004 passed in
Claim Application No. 1063 of 1999 is modified and Respondent No. 1
is entitled for the following compensation :-

Salary (Rs. 13,027/- (-) Rs. 200/-) Rs. 12,827/-
Personal Expenses 50% Rs. 6,413/-
Dependency 50% Rs. 6,413/-
Salary Rs. 6,413/- pm x 12 Months Rs. 76,956/-

Salary Rs. 76,956/- x 13 Multiplier Rs. 10,00,428/-
Add : 30% Future Prospect Rs. 3,00,128/-
Add : Filial Consortium Rs. 48,000/-
Add : Loss of Estate Rs. 18,000/-
Add : Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/-
Total Rs. 13,84,556/-

16. It is true that the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.
4,50,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- towards no fault liability. The amount
adjudicated by the Tribunal is Rs. 7,96,000/- + 9% interest. However,
the Tribunal has restricted only to Rs. 5 lakh being the amount claimed
by Respondent No. 1. This is not the proper approach. There is a
responsibility on the Tribunal to arrive at the amount of just
compensation.

17. Hence, the following order :-

10 of 11
HMK 15. FA-1919-2005-Judgment.doc

ORDER

(a) The Appellant is directed to pay Rs. 8,84,556/- (Rs.
13,84,556/- (-) Rs. 5,00,000/-) to the Respondent
No. 1 within a period of eight weeks from the
passing of the order along with 9% interest.

(b) Appeal is dismissed.

(d) The Respondent No.1 is permitted to withdraw the
amount after considering the amount which he has
already withdrawn and on payment of additional
Court Fee.

(e) The Respondent No. 1 to satisfy the Tribunal
about payment of income tax, if any, by the
deceased Mr. Rangarao by filing an affidavit whether
Mr. Rangarao was liable to pay it, and if yes, whether
he has paid it.

[ S. M. MODAK, J. ]

11 of 11

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.