Safiya Malik

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad, Single Bench of Justice Sandipkumar C. More  adjudicated upon a critical question of entitlement in motor accident claims concerning major and financially independent children of deceased victims. The court dismissed the appeal filed by the Reliance General Insurance Company, challenging the award granted to the claimants by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhule. The Bench held that major married and earning children, being legal representatives, are entitled to claim compensation irrespective of their dependency on the deceased. The Court also recalculated the compensation amount, enhancing it by applying principles laid down by the Supreme Court in subsequent judgements.

The appeal arose from the judgment and award dated 7 April 2017, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhule in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 232/2012. The original claim petition was filed by the husband and son of deceased Sharubala Ravikiran Zol, who succumbed to injuries sustained in an accident on 9 February 2012.

Also Read: “We Are Putting States to Notice”: Supreme Court Warns of Contempt Proceedings for Non-Compliance with Healthcare Reimbursement for Retired Judges

During the pendency of the claim petition, the husband of the deceased passed away, resulting in the continuation of proceedings by the deceased's son, Tejas Ravikran Zol, and daughter, Urjja Sandiprao Patil.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 42,27,824/- inclusive of the award under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act ("no fault liability") along with interest at 8% per annum. The tribunal computed compensation following the principles established by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, considering the deceased's net income of Rs. 46,623/-.

The core issue raised by the appellant insurance company was whether major children who were not dependent on the deceased’s income could claim compensation for loss of dependency under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Advocate A.S. Usmanpurkar appeared for the appellant insurance company, contending that since the claimants were financially independent and residing separately, they could not claim dependency benefits. The advocate relied heavily on several judicial pronouncements, including:

(i) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Anand Pal & Ors (SLP (Civil) No. 7805 of 2022) (ii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jaibai & Ors (MANU/MH/4417/2022) (iii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors (2017) 16 SCC 680 (iv) Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 (v) Farzana Abbas Bhai & Anr vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, 2017 (1) TAC 288 (Bom.)

Conversely, Advocate P.C. Mayure appeared for the respondents/claimants and countered the submissions, arguing that the judgment in Anand Pal’s case did not consider the earlier judgement of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Birender & Ors (AIR 2020 SC 434). He further submitted that the Apex Court recently reiterated the principles from Birender's case in Seema Rani & Ors vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd & Ors (Civil Appeal No.2323 of 2025).

The claimants argued that major married and earning children, being legal representatives, could claim compensation irrespective of their dependency status, and that the quantum of compensation should be recalculated if certain heads, such as future prospects, were omitted by the tribunal.

Justice Sandipkumar C. More observed: "Whether major married and earning children of the deceased being legal representatives, have right to apply for compensation irrespective of their dependency status on the deceased?"

Upon examination of the judgments cited by the appellant, the court recorded that while certain cases support the position that independent and married children are not considered dependents, a contrary position was affirmed by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender.

Referring to Birender's case, the court observed: "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 concerned legal representative was fully dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only."

The court noted that in the case of Seema Rani, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle laid down in Birender. Justice More recorded: "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, 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 stated that in Seema Rani, the Apex Court categorically stated that even married daughters are entitled to compensation.

Justice More observed that the Supreme Court's judgment in Anand Pal's case did not refer to or overrule Birender and hence could not displace the settled position.

Regarding recalculation of compensation, the court noted that although the Tribunal applied Sarla Verma's guidelines, it omitted to account for future prospects, which was later mandated by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram.

Justice More stated: "It is now settled that even in absence of appeal by the claimants, it is the duty of the Court to assess just and fair compensation."

Accordingly, applying the directives in Pranay Sethi, the Court recalculated the compensation. The court accepted the deceased's income as Rs. 46,623/- per month after deductions. Considering the deceased’s age of 52 years, 15% was added for future prospects, arriving at Rs. 53,616.45 per month. Using a multiplier of 11, the court calculated the loss of dependency at Rs. 70,77,371.40.

After deducting one-third for personal expenses, the loss of dependency was computed at Rs. 47,18,247.60.

Also Read: “Cannot Carve Out Any Exceptions”: Delhi High Court Refuses Pakistani Citizen’s Plea Against Long-Term Visa Revocation

Additionally, Rs. 80,000/- towards filial consortium (Rs. 40,000/- each for the son and daughter) and Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses were added, fixing the final compensation at Rs. 48,28,247.60.

The High Court issued the following directives:

1. "Appeal is hereby dismissed."

2. "The appellant Insurance Company and respondent No.4 being the insurer and owner of the offending truck shall jointly and severally pay compensation of Rs. 48,28,247.60 to respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants inclusive of the 'no fault liability' amount, along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till its realization."

3. "The amounts already deposited by the appellant Insurance Company shall be appropriated in the total compensation."

4. "After recovery, the amount shall be equally distributed between the claimants along with accrued interest."

5. "Deficit court fees, if any, be paid within four weeks."

6. "The appeal stands disposed of along with pending Civil Application 4492 of 2018."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellant: Mr. A.S. Usmanpurkar, Advocate

For the Respondents:  Mr. P.C. Mayure, Advocate

Case Title: The Reliance General Insurance Company v. Tejas Ravikran Zol and Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AUG:12172

Case Number: First Appeal No. 3325 of 2017 with Civil Application No. 4492 of 2018

Bench: Justice Sandipkumar C. More

[Read/Download order]