FAO No.5241 of 2002 (O&M) -1- S. No.274 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO No.5241 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision:20.07.2026 Smt. Ram Rati and others .....Appellants Vs. Sanjay and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present:- Mr. Bharat Singh, Advocate, Amicus Curiae, for the appellants. Mr. Rahul Pathania, Advocate for respondent No.2- NIA. **** Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. (Oral) 1. Mr. Bharat Singh, Advocate (Enrollment No.PH/5324/2023) who is present in Court has been appointed as Amicus Curiae to represent the appellants. 2. On request made by learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants, the case has been taken up in post lunch session. 3. The liability of the owner-cum-driver and the insurer has been held to be joint and several by the learned Tribunal and there is thus no necessity to issue notice to respondent No.1 and issuance of notice to respondent No.1 is accordingly dispensed with. 4. This appeal has been instituted by the claimants against the Award dated 30.08.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (for short “Tribunal”) in MACT case No.19 of 2003 in a petition under Section 166 RENU 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.5241 of 2002 (O&M) -2- of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, `Act’) for enhancement of compensation vide which a sum of Rs.60,000/- has been awarded as compensation to claimants No.1, 4 and 5, who are married sister and brothers of deceased Shamsher alias Samer who died in a motor vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the vehicle bearing No.HR- 26G/4106 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of Award till realisation whereas petition qua claimants No.2 and 3 was dismissed being sons of sister of deceased and it was held that they were neither the legal representatives nor dependent upon the deceased. 5. 5. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- “(1) Whether the accident in question took place due to the rash and negligent driving of jeep bearing No.HR-26G/4106 by respondent No.1 as alleged in the petition?OPP (2) If issue No.1 proved, whether Shamsher Singh alias Samer Singh sustained injuries in the accident in question and died because of those injuries, as alleged in the petition?OPP (3) If issue No.1 and 2 are proved, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom?OPP (4) Whether respondent No.1 had no valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time, if so its effect?OPR-2 (5) Relief. 6. The parties led their respective evidence. 7. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation to claimants No.1, 4 and 5 on account of death of their brother Shamsher alias Samer, along RENU 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.5241 of 2002 (O&M) -3- with interest 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization, payable by respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 9. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held under issue No.1 that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving offending vehicle. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with and the same is affirmed 10. Learned counsel for the claimants argued that the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on file in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation which is grossly inadequate. Learned counsel next contended that deceased was unmarried brother of claimants No.1, 4 and 5 and maternal uncle of claimants No.2 and 3 who are sons of claimant No.1 but the Tribunal has gravely erred while coming to the conclusion that claimants were not dependent upon him and only a sum of Rs.60,000/- has been awarded as compensation to claimants No.1, 4 and 5 on account of mental agony. Learned counsel next contended that the legal representative is one, who suffers on account of death of a person in a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent or child. The term `legal representative’ under Act should RENU 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.5241 of 2002 (O&M) -4- not be given a narrow interpretation to exclude those persons as claimants who were dependent on the deceased’s income and sister and brothers being financially dependent are legal representatives under the Act entitling them to receive compensation. Learned counsel next contended that Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act makes it clear that every legal representative who suffers on account of death of a person in a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realization of compensation and he prayed that adequate compensation be awarded to the claimants. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants has also relied upon (2022) 14 SCC 712, N. Jayasree Vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd, 2025 Livelaw (SC) 309 Sadhana Tomar & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kushwaha & Ors., 2009(6) SCC 121 Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2017 (16) SCC 680 National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Other, 2018 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 333 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others and (2021) 11 SCC 780 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent- Insurance Com- pany argued that adequate compensation has been awarded by the learned Tri- bunal. Learned counsel next contended that claimants- appellants cannot be termed as dependent upon the deceased as claimants No.1, 4 and 5 were already married and claimants No.2 and 3 being maternal nephews are neither legal repre- sentatives nor they were dependent upon the deceased and he prayed that the ap- peal in hand be dismissed. RENU 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.5241 of 2002 (O&M) -5- 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in N. Jayasree’s case (supra), while defin- ing the term “legal representative” has held as under:- "16. In our view, the term "legal representative" should be given a wider interpretation for the purpose of Chapter XII of the MV Act and it should not be confined only to mean the spouse, parents and children of the deceased. As noticed above, the MV Act is a benevo- lent legislation enacted for the object of providing monetary relief to the victims or their families. Therefore, the MV Act calls for a liberal and wider interpretation to serve the real purpose underlying the en- actment and fulfil its legislative intent. We are also of the view that in order to maintain a claim petition, it is sufficient for the claimant to establish his loss of dependency. Section 166 of the MV Act makes it clear that every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person in a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realization of compensation." 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sadhana Tomar’s case (supra) has held that a legal representative is one, who suffers on account of death of a person due to motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent or child. The term legal representative under Motor Vehicles Act should not be given a narrow interpretation to exclude those persons as claimants who were dependent on the deceased’s income. The father and sister, being financially dependent were legal representatives under the Act entitling them to compensation. 14. Calcutta High Court in FMA No.650 of 2007 titled Sh. Kader Ali and Others Versus The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others decided vide judgment dated 27.02.2024 has held that married brothers are the legal heirs/legal representatives of the deceased and they are entitled to compensation under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act as compensation RENU 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.5241 of 2002 (O&M) -6- amount is ultimately the estate of the deceased. In the aforesaid judgment, the Calcutta High Court has relied upon the law laid down in AIR 1987(SC) 1690 titled Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad Vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Anr., wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that 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. To the same effect is the law laid down in (2007) 10 SCC 715 – Hafizun Begum Vs. Mohd. Ikram Heque and Ors. As such, claimants No.1, 4 and 5 being the sister and brothers of deceased are his legal representatives and they have to be considered as dependent upon him and they had a right to apply for compensation. However, learned Tribunal has gravely erred while holding that claimants No.1, 4 and 5 are not dependent upon the deceased but the claim of claimants No.2 and 3 has rightly been rejected as they are neither legal representatives of the deceased nor they were dependent upon him during the lifetime of their own mother. 15. In the present case, the death had taken place on 4.1.2003 and as per version of claimants, deceased used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month from agriculture, dairy farming and sale and purchase of cattle. However, no cogent and convincing evidence was led in this regard except the self serving statement of the claimant and the same thus cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that deceased used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2022) 1 SCC 198, Chandra alias Chander alias Chanda Ram and another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, decided vide judgment dated 01.10.2021 has held that merely because claimants are unable to produce documentary evidence RENU 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.5241 of 2002 (O&M) -7- to show the monthly income of the deceased is not a ground to discard the oral evidence and in such cases, the Court is required to ensure just compensation based on preponderance of probabilities. Minimum wage notification may serve as a yardstick but cannot be the sole basis for assessing the income. Moreover, it is also well settled that where the victim/deceased belongs to unorganized sector, strict proof of income is not mandatory and notional income can be reasonably assessed based on the social status and facts and circumstances of the case. As such, some amount of guess work has to be applied while assessing the income. Taking into consideration the fact that accident had taken place in 2003, it can be assumed that deceased must have been earning atleast Rs.3,500/- per month and his income is accordingly taken as Rs.3,500/- per month. 16. Deceased was 28 years of age, and as such, 40% amount has to be added to the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra),which takes his income to Rs.4,900/- per month (Rs.3,500/- + Rs.1,400). 17. Deceased was unmarried. As such, 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. After deducting a sum of Rs.2,450/- towards personal expenses, the monthly loss of dependency comes out to Rs.2,450/- (Rs.4,900/- - Rs.2,450/-) and the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.29,400/- per annum (Rs.2,450/- X 12). 18. As per guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), multiplier of 17 has to be applied as deceased was 28 years of age and after applying the same, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,99,800/- (Rs.29,400/- X 17). RENU 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.5241 of 2002 (O&M) -8- 19. In addition to this, claimants No.4 and 5, who are brothers of deceased are held entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’, as per law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), which takes the compensation to Rs.5,29,800/-. 20. So far as compensation on account of loss of consortium is concerned, it is well settled that the same is awarded for the emotional loss of companionship. Whether brothers and sisters of deceased are entitled to it depends upon the siblings’ age and dependency. In the present case, claimants No.1, 4 and 5 were already married at the time of death of their brother who was unmarried and there is thus no loss of companionship and they are not entitled to compensation on account of loss of consortium. 21. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the appellants No.1, 3 and 4/claimants No.1, 4 and 5 is assessed as under:- S.No. Under Head Compensation awarded by the High Court 1. Monthly income of deceased Rs.3,500/- per month 2. Age of deceased 28 years 3. Future prospects @ 40% Rs.1,400/- 4. Total income Rs.4,900/- 5. Number of dependents 3 6. Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased (50%) Rs.2,450/- 7. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.2,450/- (Rs.4,900/- - Rs.2,450/-) 7. Annual loss of dependency Rs.29,400/- (Rs.2,450/- X 12) 8. Multiplier 17 9. Compensation on account of Loss Rs.4,99,800/- RENU 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.5241 of 2002 (O&M) -9- of dependency 10. Compensation on account of loss of estate and funeral charges Rs.30,000/- Total Compensation Rs.5,29,800/- Interest 9% 22. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and appellants No.1, 3 and 4/claimants No.1, 4 and 5 are held entitled to a sum of Rs.5,29,800/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.4,69,800/- to be shared equally (Rs.5,29,800/- - Rs.60,000/-) over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal payable alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 4.2.2003, till realization payable by respondents No.1 and 2, jointly and severally. 23. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the award to the respondent Insurance Company in terms of directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.534 of 2020 titled Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Versus Union of India and others, decided on 16.03.2021 and Insurance Company shall comply with the directions as issued under Clause (F) of the said judgment. 24. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Yashvir Singh Rathor) Judge July 20, 2026 renu Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RENU 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh