1 MAC No. 755 of 2022 2025:CGHC:49628 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 755 of 2022 1.Alexius Tirkey S/o Senwar Tirkey, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Village - Garhabhari, Jamargi Bagbahar, Tahsil Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 2.Anil Kujur S/o Kunwar Sai, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Village - Trisoth, Post-Ludeg, Tahsil-Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1.Smt. Sunita Kujur W/o Late Prabhat Kujur, Aged About 40 Years; 2.Minor Shashikala Kujur D/o Late Prabhat Kujur, Aged About 16 Years; 3.Minor Vipin Kujur S/o Late Prabhat Kujur, Aged About 11 Years; Respondents No.2 & 3 are Minor, Represented Through Mother Smt. Sunita Kujur; Respondents No. 1 to 3 are R/o Village Trisoth, Post – Ludeg, Tahsil – Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.10.09 10:56:36 +0530 2 MAC No. 755 of 2022 4.Vinesh Kujur S/o Late Prabhat Kujur, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Puranitoli, Jashpur Nagar, District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 5.Smt. Josfina Toppo W/o Shri Jaypal Toppo, Aged About 38 Years, D/o Late Gonu Ekka, R/o Village- Lakhtikra, Post Karmitikra, Tahsil- Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellants :- Mr. K. K. Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondents :- None though served. [ SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 06.10.2025 1.This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants, who are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, challenging the impugned award dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 28/2021, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has granted the claimants’ application and awarded compensation to the tune of 6,90,819/- ₹ along with interest for death of Vinod Ekka by fastening the liability upon the appellants herein. 3 MAC No. 755 of 2022 2.Mr. K. K. Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that the Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding the compensation to the claimants by recording perverse finding. He would also submit that deceased Vinod Ekka was the brother of Sunita Kujur & Josfina Toppo, respondents No.4 & 5 herein, respectively, and Shashikala Kujur, Vipin Kujur & Vinesh Kujur, respondents No.2 to 4 herein, respectively, are the daughter and sons of Sunita Kujur, and therefore, they are neither legal representative of deceased nor dependent of the deceased. Thus, the instant appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned award is liable to be dismissed. 3.None for the respondents though served. 4.Though claimants Sunita Kujur & Josfina Toppo are sisters of deceased Vinod Ekka and Shashikala Kujur, Vipin Kujur, & Vinesh Kujur are the daughter and sons of Sunita Kujur, and the Claims Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that Sunita Kujur used to stay in the house of 4 MAC No. 755 of 2022 deceased Vinod Ekka and he was unmarried and also recorded the finding that Sunita Kujur and her children were dependent upon the income of the deceased and proceeded to grant compensation to the claimants. In this regard, the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahemdabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another 1 is noticeable in which their Lordships have held that brother and sister who are dependent upon the deceased, are entitled for compensation under Section 166 of the Act of 1988. The principles of law laid down by their Lordships in the matter of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (supra) has been followed in the matter of Sadhana Tomar and Others v. Ashok Kushwaha and Others 2 in which it has been held that younger sister has also been held to be dependent of the deceased and she would fall under the definition of legal representatives for the purpose of claiming the compensation and observed as under:- 1 (1987) 3 SCC 234 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 554 5 MAC No. 755 of 2022 “15. In our view, in furtherance of the above exposition of law, the appellant Nos. 4 and 5 being the father and younger sister of the deceased, both not financially independent, would fall under the definition of legal representatives for the purpose of claiming the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and they were considered as dependents upon the income of the deceased, as he was doing wholesale business of selling fruits to meet the day- to-day expenses of the family. Therefore, the deduction made towards the personal expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th as the number of dependent family members is five.” 5.In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, I am of the considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal is justified in holding claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 being dependent of the deceased falls under the definition of legal representatives who are entitled for compensation along with respondent No. 5. As such, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal, it deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit