Madhya Pradesh High Court
Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Ajeeta Nayar on 13 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:38618
1 MA-1710-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN
ON THE 13th OF MAY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 1710 of 2014
RELIANCE GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.
Versus
SMT. AJEETA NAYAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri T.S. Lamba - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri M.K. Vishwakarma - Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4.
ORDER
Being aggrieved by the award dated 04/04/2014 passed in Claim Case No. 1338/2011 by the learned 14th Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal (M.P.), the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the grounds that the impugned award is contrary to law, facts and evidence available on record, and therefore deserves to be set aside and the compensation amount awarded therein be suitably reduced.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the present case, Ajeeta Nair (AW-1) has admitted in paragraph 33 of her deposition that her father-in-law was a retired government employee and was receiving pension. Further, G.K. Nair (AW-4), father of the deceased, has also admitted in paragraph 8 of his testimony that he was receiving pension and never sought financial assistance from anyone. He has further admitted that after the death of the deceased, he himself bore the household expenses. These admissions Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 15-05-2026 10:59:55 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:38618 2 MA-1710-2014 clearly establish that the father of the deceased was financially independent and was not dependent upon the income of the deceased.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal has erred in treating the father of the deceased as a dependent and consequently deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses instead of 1/4th while computing compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 and submitted that where the father is not financially dependent upon the deceased, he cannot be considered a dependent for the purpose of determining deduction towards personal and living expenses. He has further stated that merely because the father is a legal representative of the deceased, he cannot automatically be treated as a dependent in the absence of proof of financial dependency.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 argued that even though the father was receiving pension, he was still entitled to compensation on account of the death of his son, as he would have been benefitted from the future earnings and support of the deceased.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the tribunal has duly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record while passing the impugned award. Though it has come in the evidence of Ajeeta Nair (AW-1) and G.K. Nair (AW-4) that G.K. Nair was a retired government employee and was receiving pension, however, merely receiving pension cannot be a ground to hold that the father was entitled to get compensation regarding the death of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 15-05-2026 10:59:55 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:38618 3 MA-1710-2014 deceased. It is also appropriate to mention here that father is also a family member of the deceased.
6. The judgment of Sarla Verma(supra) relied upon by the appellant does not lay down an absolute proposition that in every case, the father cannot be treated as a dependent. Dependency is required to be assessed on the facts and circumstances of each case. The contribution of the deceased towards the family cannot be ignored merely because the father was receiving pension. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down a law in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender and Others (2020) 11 SCC 356 . Paras 12 to 14 of the said judgment is relevant which reads as under:-
"12. The legal representatives of the deceased could move application for compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section 166(1). The major married son who is also earning and not fully dependent on the deceased, would be still covered by the expression "legal representative" of the deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera [Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 643 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 585] had expounded that liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the legal representative concerned. Notably, the expression "legal representative" has not been defined in the Act. In Manjuri Bera [Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 643 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 585] , the Court observed thus: (SCC pp. 647-48, paras 9-12) "9. In terms of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 166 of the Act in case of death, all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased become entitled to compensation and any such legal representative can file a claim petition. The proviso to said sub-section makes the position clear that where all the legal representatives had not joined, then application can be made on behalf Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 15-05-2026 10:59:55 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:38618 4 MA-1710-2014 of the legal representatives of the deceased by impleading those legal representatives as respondents. Therefore, the High Court was justified in its view [Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2003 SCC OnLine Cal 523 : (2004) 2 CHN 370] that the appellant could maintain a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Act.
10. ... The Tribunal has a duty to make an award, determine the amount of compensation which is just and proper and specify the person or persons to whom such compensation would be paid. The latter part relates to the entitlement of compensation by a person who claims for the same.
11. According to Section 2(11) CPC, "legal representative" means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. Almost in similar terms is the definition of legal representative under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 i.e. under Section 2(1)(g).
12. As observed by this Court in Custodian of Branches of Banco National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique [Custodian of Branches of Banco National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 275] the definition contained in Section 2(11) CPC is inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is not confined to legal heirs only. Instead it stipulates that a person who may or may not be legal heir competent to inherit the property of the deceased can represent the estate of the deceased person. It includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate even without title either as executors or administrators in possession of the estate of the deceased. All such persons would be covered by the expression "legal representative". As observed in Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai [Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, (1987) 3 SCC 234 :
1987 SCC (Cri) 482] 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, Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 15-05-2026 10:59:55 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:38618 5 MA-1710-2014 husband, parent and child."
13. In para 15 of Manjuri Bera [Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 643 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 585] , while adverting to the provisions of Section 140 of the Act, the Court observed that even if there is no loss of dependency, the claimant, if he was a legal representative, will be entitled to compensation. In the concurring judgment of S.H. Kapadia, J., as his Lordship then was, it is observed that there is distinction between "right to apply for compensation" and "entitlement to compensation". The compensation constitutes part of the estate of the deceased. As a result, the legal representative of the deceased would inherit the estate. Indeed, in that case, the Court was dealing with the case of a married daughter of the deceased and the efficacy of Section 140 of the Act. Nevertheless, the principle underlying the exposition in this decision would clearly come to the aid of Respondents 1 and 2 (claimants) even though they are major sons of the deceased and also earning.
14. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the legal representative concerned was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. The evidence on record in the present case would suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre income between Rs 1,00,000 and Rs 1,50,000 per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependent on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years."
7. The tribunal has rightly considered the father of the deceased as one of the dependents and has accordingly applied deduction towards personal expenses. This Court does not find any illegality, perversity or Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 15-05-2026 10:59:55 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:38618 6 MA-1710-2014 arbitrariness in the findings recorded by the tribunal warranting interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
8. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. The award dated 04/04/2014 passed by the learned 14th Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal (M.P.) in Claim Case No.1338/2011 is hereby affirmed.
9. Record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back forthwith.
(RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN) JUDGE Rao Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 15-05-2026 10:59:55