Gujarat High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Shobhnaben Mukeshbhai Parmar on 16 March, 2023
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
C/FA/2469/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2469 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2469 of 2019
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2470 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2470 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
======================================
Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be
1 NO
allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair
3 NO
copy of the judgment ?
Whether this case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation of the
4 NO
Constitution of India or any order made
thereunder ?
======================================
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
Versus
SHOBHNABEN MUKESHBHAI PARMAR
======================================
Appearance:
MR SUNIL B PARIKH(582) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Defendant(s) No. 3,4
JENIL M SHAH(7840) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
======================================
Page 1 of 20
Downloaded on : Fri Mar 17 20:44:30 IST 2023
C/FA/2469/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2023
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 16/03/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Challenge in these appeals is given to a common judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar (the Tribunal) on 31.12.2018 in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 217 of 2014 and 218 of 2014 (claim petition). The claimants are married daughters of deceased parents, who, on 15.05.2014 were going from Bhavnagar to Surat in a Car bearing registration No. GJ-5-CM-2986. The said car was driven by father - Shamjibhai. It is stated that he was driving the car slowly and on correct side of the road and the mother was the occupant in the said car. It is further stated that while the car was heading forward, a luxury bus No. GJ-5-AZ-2970, being driven in rash and negligent manner and in full speed, dashed with the car. Both got injured and succumbed to the severe injuries.
2. The learned Tribunal was pleased to grant compensation as under:
Head MACP No. MACP No.
217 of 2014 218 of 2014
Future loss of income 2,37,000/- 2,90,400/-
Page 2 of 20
Downloaded on : Fri Mar 17 20:44:30 IST 2023
C/FA/2469/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2023
Loss of estate 15,000/- 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 15,000/-
Total 2,67,600/- 3,20,400/-
3. Learned advocate Mr. Sunil B. Parikh for the appellant - insurance company contended that both the claimants, as married daughters, cannot be considered as dependents of the parents and hence, the amount granted under the head of future loss of income / dependency loss, is erroneous and illegal. Learned advocate Mr. Parikh relied upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court, rendered in First Appeal No. 1850 of 2019 in TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kunjal Jitendra Joshi with allied matters, on 13.05.2022 and the decision in First Appeal No. 177 of 2011 dated 22.02.2017 between Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mahadevbhai Gandabhai Koli and 7 and the decision in First Appeal No. 2255 of 2020 between Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bipinbhai Muljibhai Padhiyar dated 21.12.2022 to contend that married daughters would be entitled to file the petition as heirs and legal representatives but would not be entitled to compensation as they are not dependents on the parents under the head of loss of dependency.
Page 3 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 17 20:44:30 IST 2023
C/FA/2469/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2023
4. Countering the arguments, learned advocate Mr. Jenil M. Shah for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, by relying on decisions in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender and Ors., (2020) 11 SCC 356; in Manjuri Bera (Smt.) v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., (2007) 10 SCC 643 and in Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Ltd. v. Thakor Jayantibhai Piraji, 2022 ACJ 902 submitted that with the development in the Hindu Succession Act and the personal laws, the concept of dependency has merged into the expression 'legal representative' and stated that, now, there would not be any difference between a daughter and a son to exclude them as being the legal representatives. Learned advocate Mr. Shah submitted that in a case when a son has not been found to be an earning member of the family or is earning less than the parents, the son is also considered as a dependent and when the daughters are not found to be an earning person, then they, as legal representatives, would be entitled to even the dependency loss.
4.1 In Manjuri Bera (supra), the Apex Court has laid down the meaning of 'legal representative' referred to in Section 2(11) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) in paragraph 11, Page 4 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 17 20:44:30 IST 2023 C/FA/2469/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2023 which reads as under:
"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)."
4.2 Thereafter, in the same judgment, referring to the decisions of Custodian of Branches of BANCO National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 275, the definition of 'legal representative' under Section 2(11) CPC is considered to be inclusive in character and it is found that the scope is not limited to the legal heirs only and that the person, who may or may not be a legal heir, competent to inherit the property of the deceased can represent the asset of the deceased person. The relevant paragraph 12 thus reads as under:
"As observed by this Court in Custodian of Branches of BANCO National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique the definition contained in Section 2(11) CPC is inclusive in character and its scope is wide, Page 5 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 17 20:44:30 IST 2023 C/FA/2469/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2023 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 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, husband, parent and child."
4.3 After considering the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), it has been observed that there are several facts are to be noted and that the liability under Section 140 of the Act does not cease because of the absence of dependency and right to file a claim petition has to be considered in the background of right of entitlement and multiplier is considered to be the measure for assessing the quantum. As further observed that there are three stages while assessing the question of entitlement, firstly, the liability of the person who is liable and the person who is to indemnify the liability, if any. Next is the quantification and Section 166 is primarily in nature of recovery proceedings and thus, thereafter, it has been laid down that the liability in terms of Section 140 of Act does not cease because of the dependency.
Page 6 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 17 20:44:30 IST 2023
C/FA/2469/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2023 4.4 Learned advocate Mr. Parikh for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Diptiben Ureshbhai Vora and Ors., 2017 ACJ 234 and has referred to the observations made in the judgment, where the Court has referred to the decision in Manjuri Bera (supra) and Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & Anr., 1987 ACJ 561 (SC) and thus, has observed in paragraph 10 as under:
"10. Thus, considering the object and purpose of awarding compensation under the head of loss of dependency / future loss of income, though at the instance of claimant, who was a legal representative but not dependent upon the deceased / victim of the accident, claim petition for seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be maintainable, but such claimant, who was not dependent upon the deceased / victim of the accident, shall not be entitled to any compensation under the head of loss of dependency / future loss of income, for the simple reason that at the time of accident, such a claimant was not dependent upon the income of the deceased / victim of the accident and therefore, there shall not be any loss of dependency / future loss of income to such a claimant. However, such claimant shall be entitled to compensation under other heads such as medical expenses, funeral expenses, transportation charges etc. which may fall under pecuniary loss / pecuniary damages, as the same can be said to be loss to the estate and the claimant shall also be entitled to compensation under other conventional heads such as loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate etc. Under the Page 7 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 17 20:44:30 IST 2023 C/FA/2469/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2023 circumstances, it is held that the claim petition seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of the deceased / victim of the accident, at the instance of a claimant, who is heir and legal representative but not dependent, shall be maintainable and as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manjula Devi (supra), such compensation shall not be less than the amount as provided under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, the claimant in such a case, shall be entitled to minimum compensation as provided under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further observed and held that as such claim petition is held to be maintainable, such a claimant, who is legal heir but not a dependent, shall not be entitled to any amount of compensation under the head of loss of dependency / future loss of income, but shall be entitled to compensation under other heads towards pecuniary loss / damages such as medical expenses, transportation, special diet, attendance charges and under the conventional heads such as, loss of consortium, loss of estate, loss of love and affection etc."
4.5 The Division Bench in First Appeal No. 1850 of 2019 and allied matter (supra), after having made the reference of decisions in Diptiben Ureshbhai Vora (supra), Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, Manjuri Bera (supra), Birender (supra), referring to the facts of the case, has noted that the claimant is a resident of Canada for more than a decade and is having his independent income as well as income of his wife and the evidence on record, therefore, does not exhibit that Page 8 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 17 20:44:30 IST 2023 C/FA/2469/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2023 the claimant, in any manner, can be said to be largely dependent on the earning of parents / brother, nor it is the case of the claimant that he was staying with his parents / brother and hence, in that case, he was not considered to fall under the term "dependent". The facts of the case of Birender (supra) was distinguished with the case before the Division Bench to observe that the facts in Birender (supra) were totally different whereas in the case of claimant, he was well settled in Canada and was earning in foreign currency and in the facts and circumstances, Birender's case was not made applicable and following the decision in Diptiben Ureshbhai Vora (supra), it was observed that the claimant cannot be termed as 'dependent'.
4.6 In the Division Bench decision in Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Ltd. (supra), the claimant was a sister of the deceased. The parents of the deceased died before the accident. Except the claimant, there was no one representing the assets of the deceased. On the facts of the case, it had been laid down in paragraphs 11, 11.1 and 11.2 as under:
"11. The fact that the opponent no.6 is the only Page 9 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 17 20:44:30 IST 2023 C/FA/2469/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2023 legal representative of the deceased is undisputed and the letter of administration in favour of the opponent no.6 - original claimant at Exh-50 also fortifies that the opponent no.6 is the only legal representative of the deceased. The question of any other person claiming any right from the estate is out of question in the present case. Even otherwise the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 if taken into consideration supports the claimant - opponent no.6 who is the sister of the deceased and in absence of Class-I legal heirs the opponent no.6 is the legal heir Class-II legal representative as per the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
11.1 The law is well settled that the Motor Accident Act is a beneficial legislation enacted with the object to provide monetary relief to the victim or their family. The Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time in its decisions referred to above has held that the term 'legal representative' is required to be given a wider interpretation for the purpose of Chapter XII of the Motor Vehicle Act and the interpretation should not be confined only to the spouse, parents and children of the deceased. The Act therefore calls for a liberal and wider interpretation to serve the underlying purpose of the enactment and fulfillment of its legislative intent.
11.2 To maintain a claim petition it is sufficient for the claimant to establish that there is loss of dependency and every legal representative who suffers on account of death of a person in a motor vehicle accident have the remedy for realization of compensation."
4.7 On the observations so made, in view of the legal position, it was held that the sister of the deceased was entitled to claim compensation in the capacity of legal Page 10 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 17 20:44:30 IST 2023 C/FA/2469/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2023 representative.
4.8 Here, in the instant case, both the sisters are the only legal heirs of the deceased parents. In Manjuri Bera's case (supra), an argument was raised that married daughters could not be covered by the expression "legal representative"
considering Section 166 of the Act and would not be entitled to any compensation unless she is dependent on the deceased.
4.9 The Apex Court in Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & Anr.
(supra), while referring to the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and the expression 'legal representative' has held as under:
"11 Clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of section 110-A of the Act provide that an application for compensation arising out of an accident may be made where death has resulted from the accident by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased or by any agent duly authorised by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. The proviso to sub-section (1) of section 110-A provides that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. The expression 'legal representative' has not been defined in the Act. Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Page 11 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 17 20:44:30 IST 2023 C/FA/2469/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2023 Procedure, 1908 defines 'legal representative' as 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. The above definition, no doubt, in terms does not apply to a case before the Claims Tribunal but it has to be stated that even in ordinary parlance the said expression is understood almost in the same way in which it is defined in the Code of Civil 'Procedure. A legal representative ordinarily means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person or a person on whom the estate devolves on the death of an individual. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 110-A of the Act authorises all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased to make an application for compensation before the Claims Tribunal for the death of the deceased on account of a motor vehicle accident and clause (c) of that sub-section authorises any agent duly authorised by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased to make it. The proviso to sub-section (1) of section 110-A of the Act appears to be of some significance. It provides that the application for compensation shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased. Section 110-A(1) of the Act thus expressly states that (i) an application for compensation may be made by the legal representatives of the deceased or their agent and
(ii) that such application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives.
Both the persons or person who can make an application for compensation and the persons for whose benefit such application can be made are thus indicated in section 110-A of the Act. This section in a way is a substitute to the extent indicated above for the provisions of section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which provides that "every such action or suit shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent and child, if any, of the Page 12 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 17 20:44:30 IST 2023 C/FA/2469/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2023 person whose death shall have been so caused, and shall be brought by and in the name of the executor, administrator or representative of the person deceased." While the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 provides that such suit shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent and child of the deceased, section 110-A(1) of the Act says that the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of the legal representatives of the deceased. A legal representative in a given case need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child. It is further seen from section 110-B of the Act that the Claims Tribunal is authorised to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid. This provision takes the place of the third para- graph of section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act. 1855 which provides that in every such action, the Court may give such damages as it may think proportioned to the loss resulting from such death to the parties respectively, for whom and for whose benefit such action shall be 'brought. Persons for whose benefit such an application can be made and the manner in which the compensation awarded may be distributed amongst the persons for whose benefit the application is made are dealt with by section 110-A and section 110-B of the Act and to that extent the provisions of the Act do supersede the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 in so far as motor vehicles accidents are concerned. These provisions are not merely procedural provisions. They substantively affect the rights of the parties. As the right of action created by the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 was "new in its species, new in its quality, new in its principles, in every way new" the right given to the legal representatives under the Act to file an application for compensation for death due to a motor vehicle accident is equally new and an enlarged one. This new right cannot be hedged in by all the limitations of an action under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. New situations and Page 13 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 17 20:44:30 IST 2023 C/FA/2469/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2023 new dangers require new strategies and new remedies."
4.10 While referring to various decisions of this Court as well as other Hon'ble High Courts, in the very same judgment, the application made by a nephew of the deceased, who had died on account of a motor vehicle accident, was considered to be clearly maintainable under the Act. The observations of the Court is at paragraph 12, which read as under:
"12. Amongst the High Courts in India there is a cleavage in the opinion as regards the maintainability of action under section 110-A of the Act by persons other than the wife, husband, parent and child of the person who dies on account of a motor vehicle accident. All these cases are considered by the High Court of Gujarat in its decision in Magjibhai Khiraji Vira and another v. Chaturbhai Taljabhai and others (supra). The first set of cases are those which are referred to in paragraph 5 of the above decision which lay down that every claim application for compensation arising out of a fatal accident would be governed by the substantive provisions of sections 1A and 2 of the 1855 Act and no dependent of the deceased other than the wife, husband, parent or child would be entitled to commence an action for damages against the tort tensors. Amongst these cases are P.B. Kader and others v. Thatchamma and others, A.I.R. 1970 Kerala 241 and Dewan Hari Chand and others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another, A.I.R. 1973 Delhi 67. The second group of cases are those referred to in paragraph 6 of the decision of the Gujarat High Court. They are Perumal v. Ellusamy Reddiar, [1974] ACJ 182 (Mad) Page 14 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 17 20:44:30 IST 2023 C/FA/2469/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2023 and the Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hanumantha Rao, [1975] ACJ 344 (Andhra Pradesh). These cases lay down that while the compensation payable under section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 is restricted to the relatives of the deceased named therein the compensation payable under section 2 thereof may be awarded in favour of the representatives of the deceased who are entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased. The third group of cases are those referred to in paragraph 7 of the judgment of the Gujarat High Court. They are Mohammed Habibullah and another v. K. Seethammal, A.I.R. 1967 Mad. 123; Veena Kumari Kohli v. Punjab Roadways, [1967] ACJ 297 (Pb.) and Smt. Ishwar Devi Malik v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1969 Delhi 183 which take the view that a claim for compensation arising out of the use of a motor vehicle would be exclusively governed by the provisions of sections 110 to 110-F of the Act and bears no connection to claims under the 1855 Act and the Claims Tribunal need not follow the principles laid down under the latter Act. Having considered all the three sets of decisions referred to above, Ahmadi, J. who wrote the judgment in Megjibhai Khimji Vira and another v. Chaturbhai Taljabhai and others (supra) came to the conclusion that an application made by the nephews of the deceased who died on account of a motor vehicle accident was clearly maintainable under section 110-A of the Act."
4.11 The referred judgment of Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & Anr. (supra), thus in paragraph 13 observes that the view taken by this High Court is in consonance with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience having regard to the condition of Indian society. It has been observed thus that every legal representative who suffers on account of the death Page 15 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 17 20:44:30 IST 2023 C/FA/2469/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2023 of a person due to motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realization of the compensation under Act. And that the provisions under the MV Act are in consonance with the principle of law of torts that every injury must have a remedy and it is for the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to determine the compensation which appears to be just as provided under the Act and to specify the person or persons to whom the compensation shall be paid. The determination of the compensation payable is to be done in accordance with the well know principles of law and thus, remembering the Indian conditions, it has been observed that in Indian families, brothers, sisters, children and sometimes, foster children live together and they are dependent on the breadwinner of the family. That there would be no justification to deny compensation relying upon the provisions of the Act. 4.12 Here in this case, both the claimant daughters are the legal representatives of the deceased parents. They have no brothers and ultimately, it could be considered that such daughters were looking after the parents, though not physically staying with them but as the heirs of the parents. With the development of law in Hindu Succession Act, under Page 16 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 17 20:44:30 IST 2023 C/FA/2469/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2023 Section 6, the daughters are considered as heirs in co- parcenery property by birth. Even if followed the provisions of the Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, the daughters would be the Class-I heir of the parents and thus, this Court considers that the daughters being the heirs would be entitled for claiming compensation on the death of parents. The daughters, thus, being a legal representative, would be and since had no other male person to support the parents in their old age, the parents would have certainly relied on the daughters for the future needs had they been alive and being legal representative, the daughters would have inherited the parents' estate.
4.13 In Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & Anr. (supra) the concluding portion at penultimate paragraph, it has been noted as:
"15. Before concluding we may add that although the Act was extensively modified after the receipt of the report of the Law Commission, Parliament did not choose to amend section 110-A of the Act by defining the expression 'legal representatives' in relation to claims under Chapter VIII of the Act as 'the spouse, parent and children of the deceased' as recommended by the Law Commission. The Law Commission had observed in its 85th report that it would be appropriate to assign to the expression Page 17 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 17 20:44:30 IST 2023 C/FA/2469/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2023 'legal representative' the same meaning as had been given to the expression 'representative' for the purposes of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and that would effectively carry-out the purpose of social justice underlying Chapter VIII of the Act, to which the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 was the nearest approximation. This recommendation was made after referring to the divergent views expressed by the various High Courts on the meaning of the expression 'legal representatives' in section 110-A of the Act. The fact that Parliament declined to take any action on the recommendation of the Law Commission of India suggests that Parliament intended that the expression 'legal representatives' in section 110-A of the Act should be given a wider meaning and it should not be confined to the spouse, parent and children of the deceased."
4.14 In Manjuri Bera (supra), the Apex Court has held that the No Fault Liability envisaged under Section 140 of the MV Act, is distinguishable from the rule of 'Strict Liability'. It is further held that right to make an application has to be considered in the background of right to entitlement and while assessing the quantum of compensation, the multiplier system is applied because of deprivation of dependency. In the said judgment, it is also being held that since the amount to be awarded under Section 140 of the MV Act is a fixed/crystalised amount, the same is to be considered as a part of the estate of the deceased. Apart from that, there can be claim to compensation under other conventional heads necessarily Page 18 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 17 20:44:30 IST 2023 C/FA/2469/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2023 incurred in the case of deaths.
4.15 In Birender (supra), in paragraph 14 of the judgment reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356, the Apex Court concluded that now, it is thus settled that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation, having observed so, it was held to be necessarily followed that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and therefore, it would be 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.
4.16 The general principle for dependency has been clarified in the decision in Sarla Verma (supra) wherein, the observation made in the decision in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362, has been adopted to consider the concept as 'just compensation' to express, as is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable on the facts and circumstances of the Page 19 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 17 20:44:30 IST 2023 C/FA/2469/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2023 case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong as far as money can do so by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. Here in this case, the claimants are the only heirs to the parents and the daughters would have been expected to depend upon the income of the parents as there were no other supporting sharer in the family. Thus, this Court is of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, both the daughters though are married, would be entitled to claim compensation on the loss of parents and hence, would be entitled to dependency loss.
5. For the forgoing discussion and observations, the appeals fail and are dismissed accordingly. Notice of admission is discharged. R&P, if received, be transmitted back to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith.
5.1 In view of the main appeals are dismissed, civil application therein, also stand dismissed.
[ Gita Gopi, J. ] hiren /1 Page 20 of 20 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 17 20:44:30 IST 2023