CHOLAMANDALAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.versusMITHLESH KUMARI AND 4 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 292 of 2026

Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Ltd.
                                                          .....Appellant(s)
                                  Versus

Mithlesh Kumari And 4 Others
                                                        .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)          :   Pawan Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)         :   Ram Om Vikram Singh Chauhan

Court No. - 54
                      HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Heard Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and
Shri   Ram      Om     Vikram      Chauhan,     learned    counsel   for
respondents/claimants. However, none has appeared on behalf of the
respondent nos.4 and 5 despite notice have been duly served on them.

2. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant-Insurance
Company with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and decree
dated 17.10.2025 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Etawah in
M.A.C.P. No.761 of 2017 (Mithilesh Kumari & Ors. vs. Sachin Kumar &
Ors.) whereby the claim petition was partly allowed and an amount of
Rs.4,30,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants.

Brief facts

3. Briefly stated, the deceased Bhagwan Devi was knocked down by a
Scorpio Car bearing registration No. UP-75 L/0987 on 04.10.2017 at
about 11:00 a.m. while she was waiting for a tempo on the side of Balrai-
Jaswantnagar road, District Etawah. She was taken to District Hospital,
Etawah, where she succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. At
the time of accident, she was aged about 70 years.

4. The deceased was a widow. She had three daughters, out of whom one
had already died in the year 2015. Her two surviving daughters were
married and were residing with the deceased. Chandra Prakash, son of the
deceased daughter, was also one of the claimants. Thus, the claim petition
under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the
                                                        FAFO No. 292 of 2026
                               2


two married daughters and the grandson of the deceased.

5. The Tribunal, while considering the issue of negligence, recorded a
finding against the driver of the offending vehicle. The income of the
deceased was assessed at Rs.9,000/- per month on the basis of pension
being received by her. Considering the other relevant factors, the Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs.4,30,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per
annum.

Arguments

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the
claimants were not dependent upon the deceased. Both the daughters were
married and aged above 40 years, whereas the other claimant was the
grandson of the deceased. No evidence was adduced to establish that any
of the claimants was financially dependent upon the deceased. Therefore,
the Tribunal was not justified in calculating compensation by treating the
pension received by the deceased as the basis for determining loss of
dependency.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants
submits that the deceased was residing with her daughters and the
claimants were receiving financial support from the pension being
received by her. It is, therefore, submitted that the findings recorded by
the Tribunal do not call for any interference.

Conclusion

8. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the parties and having gone through the material available on record, the
sole question which arises for consideration is as to whether the
claimants, being legal representatives of the deceased but not shown to be
dependent upon her, are entitled to the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal on the basis of loss of dependency.

9. The facts which are not in dispute are that the deceased was aged about
70 years and was a widow. Her two surviving daughters were married and
both were aged above 40 years. The third claimant is the son of the
                                                         FAFO No. 292 of 2026
                               3


daughter of the deceased who had died in the year 2015. Though it has
been stated that the deceased was residing with her daughters, there is no
satisfactory evidence on record to establish that the claimants were
financially dependent upon the deceased or that the pension received by
her was being regularly utilised for meeting their financial needs.

10. The distinction between the status of a legal representative and that of
a dependent is required to be kept in view. In Gujarat State Road
Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another 1987
AIR 1690, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the expression “legal
representative” and held that the said expression is not confined only to
the spouse, parents and children of the deceased. A 'legal representative'
ordinarily means a person who in law represents the estate of the
deceased. The expression has to be given a wider meaning in the context
of the Motor Vehicles Act and is not to be restricted merely on the basis
of the traditional concept of heirs.

11. The aforesaid principle was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and
another 2007 (10) SCC 643, wherein the question of entitlement of a
legal representative who was not dependent upon the deceased came up
for consideration. In paragraphs 9 and 10, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
noticed that all or any of the legal representatives can maintain a claim
petition under Section 166 of the Act and that the expression “legal
representative” is wider than the expression “legal heir”. It was further
noticed that a legal representative need not necessarily be a wife,
husband, parent or child and that the expression has to be understood in
its wider sense.

12. However, the aforesaid principle does not mean that every legal
representative, merely by establishing such status, becomes entitled to
compensation calculated on the basis of loss of dependency. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in paragraphs 11 and 12 of Manjuri Bera (Supra) has
drawn a distinction between the right to maintain a claim and the
quantification of compensation. It has been held that the liability under
Section 140 of the Act does not cease merely because dependency is
absent. At the stage of quantification, the multiplier method is essentially
                                                        FAFO No. 292 of 2026
                               4


a measure for determining the loss occasioned by deprivation of
dependency. Therefore, where a legal representative is not dependent
upon the deceased, the compensation cannot be worked out on the basis
of loss of dependency; nevertheless, such legal representative would be
entitled to compensation which cannot be less than the liability referable
to Section 140 of the Act.

13. The principle is, therefore, that dependency is relevant for
quantification of compensation, whereas the absence of dependency by
itself does not take away the right of a legal representative to maintain a
claim petition.

14. In the present case, the claimants may be treated as legal
representatives of the deceased for the purpose of maintaining the claim
petition. However, merely because the deceased was residing with her
daughters, it cannot be presumed that the married daughters, who were
above 40 years of age, were financially dependent upon their mother.
Likewise, the mere fact that the third claimant is the grandson of the
deceased, whose mother had predeceased the deceased, is not sufficient,
in the absence of cogent evidence, to establish that he was dependent
upon the pensionary income of the deceased.

15. The Tribunal, therefore, committed an error in treating the entire
pension of Rs.9,000/- per month as the basis for determining loss of
dependency and thereafter applying the multiplier. In the absence of proof
of dependency, such calculation cannot be sustained.

16. The accident in the present case occurred on 04.10.2017. At the
relevant time, Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provided for a
fixed compensation of Rs.50,000/- in case of death arising out of a motor
vehicle accident on the principle of no-fault liability.

17. The judgment in Manjuri Bera (supra) makes it clear that even where
the claimant is a legal representative but is not dependent upon the
deceased, the compensation cannot be less than the amount referable to
Section 140 of the Act. Thus, in the facts of the present case, where no
loss of dependency has been established, the claimants would be entitled
to compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the principle contained in Section
                                                                                              FAFO No. 292 of 2026
                                                                   5


                                    140 of the Act, instead of Rs.4,30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

                                    18. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be
                                    reduced from Rs.4,30,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. The other findings of the
                                    Tribunal, including the finding regarding negligence of the offending
                                    vehicle, do not suffer from any error and are accordingly affirmed. The
                                    claimants shall, therefore, be entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- along with
                                    interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
                                    petition till actual payment.

                                    19. The judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims
                                    Tribunal is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation
                                    awarded in favour of the claimants is reduced from Rs.4,30,000/- to
                                    Rs.50,000/-. The aforesaid amount of compensation, along with accrued
                                    interest, shall be disbursed equally amongst all the three claimants,
                                    subject to adjustment of any amount already received by them.

                                    20. The remaining findings recorded by the Tribunal, including the
                                    finding regarding negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, are
                                    affirmed. The amount, if any, deposited by the appellant-Insurance
                                    Company in excess of the modified award shall be adjusted/refunded in
                                    accordance with law.

                                    21. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed.




                                                                                              (Anil Kumar-X,J.)
                                    September 10, 2026
                                    SK




Digitally signed by :-
SUSHEEL KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad