-1- 2025:CGHC:25573 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1530 of 2019 Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. First Floor, B-7, Shriram Nagar, T. V. Tower Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Head Office At Unit 401, Fourth Floor, Sangam Complex-127, Andheri Kurla Road Andheri, Mumbai (Maharashtra) ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Khilanand S/o Late Shri Mangalram Aged About 30 Years (Claimant No. 1) 2 - Ku. Usha D/o Late Shri Mangalram Aged About 35 Years (Claimant No. 2) Both R/o Village Mohgaon, Bhanupratappur, Thana And Tehsil Bhanupratappur, District Kanker Chhattisgarh 3 - Dhananjay Rao S/o Shri Shyamshiv Aged About 22 Years R/o Santoshi Ward, Jagdalpur, Thana Bodhgath, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 1) (Driver) 4 - L. Rishi Naidu S/o Shri Lenka Ishwar Rao R/o Santoshi Ward, Jagdalpur, Thana Bodhgath, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2) (Owner) ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate For Respondents : None appears _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.06.26 10:17:52 +0530 -2- 19/06/2025 1. This case is already admitted for hearing and listed today before this Court for hearing on application for grant of stay. 2. Appellant/Insurance Company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) challenging the award dated 23.04.2019 passed by learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker in Claim Case No.31 of 2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has partly allowed the claim application filed by respondents No. 1 & 2/ claimants and awarded compensation of Rs.4,01,400/-. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that respondents No. 1 & 2/claimants have filed an application under Section 166 and 140 of the Act of 1988 before Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur, seeking compensation stating therein that on 27.12.2017 at 12:15 p.m., when Sonsir Dhangul was returning home with her daughter after visiting the field, at that time, non-applicant No.1 driving Tata Zest car number CG 17 KH 4964 rashly and negligently dashed Sonsir Dhangul and caused accident. In accident, Sonsir Dhangul suffered serious injuries on different parts of body and she succumbed to the injuries on spot. At the time of accident, the deceased was a 58-year-old married woman and was earning Rs. 12,000/- (twelve thousand rupees) per month by selling vegetables and was supporting herself and her family. The deceased was living with her family. The applicants were dependents on the deceased. The -3- respondents No. 1 & 2/claimants prayed for compensation of Rs. 19,50,000/- from non-applicants therein. 4. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 by submitting a joint reply to the claim application, pleaded that non-applicant No.1 had a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident and the vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3. The accident itself occurred due to careless road crossing by the deceased. On the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was being driven at a slow speed. 5. Non-applicant No.3/ insurance company in its reply pleaded that on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license, on the date of the accident, more persons than the seating capacity of the offending vehicle were traveling, as such, there was breach of conditions of insurance policy. Therefore, non-applicant No.3 would not be liable to pay any amount of compensation. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1. In the accident, Sonsir Dhangul suffered grievous injuries and died. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found to be proved , learned Claims Tribunal held non- applicants liable to pay the amount of compensation. Assessing income of the appellant/claimant as Rs.4500/- per month, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total -4- compensation of Rs.4,01,400/ -. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in allowing the claim application in entirety granting compensation to claimants treating them to be dependents upon the deceased who are major son and daughter. He submits that major son and daughter cannot be treated to be dependent upon their parents where in the facts of the case deceased was about 60 years of age. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the record of claim case. 9. Perusal of the pleadings of the claim application would show that there is specific pleading that, deceased was maintaining her children/claimants. It is further mentioned that claimant No.2 major daughter was suffering with some mental ailment. Appellant/non- applicant No.3/Insurance Company was served with notice of claim application, it was represented by counsel, submitted reply to claim application, however, no specific pleading has been made to controvert the pleading made in para-21 of the claim application with regard to dependency of the claimants upon income of deceased. No evidence in this regard has been brought on record by the appellant/Insurance Company. 10. Learned Claims Tribunal in para-13 of the impugned award has discussed the pleadings made in claim application, written statement -5- and also that the appellant/insurance company has not brought any evidence to say that claimants who are major children were not dependent upon the deceased. 11.In absence of specific pleadings and evidence of appellant/insurance company to controvert the pleading made in the claim application that the claimants were dependents upon the deceased, submission raised by learned counsel for the appellant for the first time before appellate Court is not acceptable. Accordingly, said submission of learned counsel for the appellant is repelled. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Birender & Ors. (2020) 11 SCC 356 while deciding the issue as to whether the major sons of the deceased who are married and gainfully employed or earning, can claim compensation under the Act of 1988 or not, has observed thus:- “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 concerned legal representative was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only.”……………... 13. Considering the aforementioned facts and the decision of Hon’ble -6- Supreme Court and further that except the aforesaid discussed ground, no other ground has been raised by learned counsel appearing for appellant/insurance company during course of argument in this appeal I am of the considered opinion that appeal is bereft of merit, the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen