1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1689 of 2019 1 - Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Liimited Shiv Mohan Bhawan Vidhan Sabha Road Pandri Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Kamla Bai Thakur W/o Late Shri Durga Singh Thakur Aged About 27 Years R/o Aadivasi Colony, Kushalpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chandrahas Markam S/o Durga Singh Thakur Aged About 28 Years R/o Aadivasi Colony, Kushalpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Pankaj Markam S/o Durga Singh Thakur Aged About 24 Years R/o Aadivasi Colony, Kushalpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Nandani Markam D/o Durga Singh Thakur Aged About 20 Years R/o Aadivasi Colony, Kushalpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Abhishek Sinha S/o L.R. Sinha Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Gurur, Police Station Gurur District Balod Chhattisgarh. (Owner Cum Driver), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant/Insurance Company : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For respondent No.5 : Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For other respondents : None appears though served Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 15.12.2025 1. Heard. 2. The Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the quantum part of award passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No.716 of 2017, dated 17.05.2019, whereby, the learned Tribunal granted compensation to REKHA SINGH 2 the tune of Rs.40,96,750/- with interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of Durga Singh Thakur. 3. The facts in brief are that on 16.01.2017, the deceased Durga Singh Thakur was going towards Kolihapuri Chowk on his motorcycle and at the same time, driver of Megna Car bearing registration No.C.G.12-R/4075 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the deceased, resultantly, he sustained injuries and succumbed to death. 4. The claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by wife and major children of deceased, interalia, on the ground that on the date of accident, age of the deceased was 61 years and earning Rs.54,068/- per month as he was Head Master in the Government Primary School Shikaribhata, Kolihapuri, Dongargarh. They pleaded that the deceased was earning an additional sum of Rs.15,000/- from tutoring. Further, benefit of 7th Pay Commission was extended with effect from 1st of January, 2016, therefore, there was possibility of increase in the pay scale of the deceased from Rs.54,068/- to Rs.70,000/-. 5. The Insurance Company filed reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition. The Insurance Company took a plea that the deceased himself was negligent while crossing the road. The income part of the deceased pleaded by the claimant in para 6 of the claim petition was specifically denied by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company further pleaded that claimants No.2 & 3 are major sons of the deceased and they would not come within the definition of the dependent. It is also pleaded that after death of the deceased, the family members would get pension and thus, there is no loss of income. 3 6. Learned Tribunal framed issues; parties led evidence and thereafter, award was passed. 7. Mr. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at higher side. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the deceased Rs.70,000/- without there being any pleading and proof in this regard. He would contend that the learned Tribunal enhanced the income of the deceased from Rs.61,635/- to Rs.70,000/- on anticipation that the deceased would have received benefit of 7th Pay Commission with effect from 1st of January, 2016. Mr. Patel would further contend that the claimants No.2 & 3 are major sons of the deceased and they were not dependent on the income of the deceased, therefore, learned Tribunal should have deducted 1/3rd in place of 1/4th for personal and living expenses of the deceased. He would pray to allow this appeal. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5/driver and owner of the offending vehicle would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Patel. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation and appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the record. 10. Admittedly, the deceased was a Head Master posted at Government Primary School Shikaribhata, Kolihapuri, Dongargarh. Learned Tribunal considered his salary Rs.61,635/- on the basis of pay slip vide Ex.P/11. The Insurance Company could not lead evidence to rebut the said document. It is not in dispute that the benefit of 7th Pay Commission 4 was extended to all government servants of the State of Chhattisgarh with effect from 1st of January, 2016. The deceased died in a road accident on 16.01.2017, thus, he was eligible to get benefit of 7th Pay Commission with effect from 1st of January, 2016 and the learned Tribunal rightly extended the benefit of 7th Pay Commission while assessing the monthly income of the deceased and therefore, the contention made by Mr. Patel cannot be accepted. 11. Mr. Patel further argued that the claimants No.2 & 3 are major sons of the deceased and they were not dependent on the income of the deceased. The Insurance Company could not lead evidence to prove the fact that the claimants No.2 & 3 were not dependent on the income of the deceased. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Seema Rani and others Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others, passed in Civil Appeal No.2323 of 2025, held that the major sons being legal representatives of the deceased would be competent to file a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Relevant para is reproduced herein below : “9. We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellants. 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. 2020(11) SCC 356, 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 went on to conclude that since the sons, in that case, were earning merely Rs.1,50,000/- per annum, they were largely dependent on the earnings of the deceased and were staying with her. 13. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Seema Rani (supra) and the facts discussed- above, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award 5 passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha