( 2025:HHC:33792 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO No. 236 of 2019. Decided on : 6 th October, 2025. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .. Appellant. Versus Nikku Ram & others ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. O. C. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Aditya Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate, vice counsel for respondent No.6. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). Heard. 2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the insurer against the Award dated 08.04.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-1, Solan, H.P. (for short “the Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No. 56-S/2 of 2016. 3. Respondents No.1 to 4 herein were the claimants before the learned Tribunal. The claim petition under Section 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:33792 ) 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 was filed by the claimants being legal representatives of deceased Bhag Singh, who had died in a motor vehicle accident on 15.06.2016 at place Gharaunda, District Karnal (Haryana). Learned Tribunal has assessed the compensation under the following heads:- Sr. No. Heads under which compensation was granted Amount of compensation. 1. Loss of dependency to the family Rs.11,42,400/- 2. Loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/- 3. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- 4. Total compensation Rs.12,57,400/- 4. As per the findings returned by the learned Tribunal, the deceased was working as a driver and his income has been assessed at Rs.8000/- per month. Indisputably, the deceased was a bachelor. The claimants are the brothers of the deceased. 5. Learned Tribunal had made an addition of 40% in the monthly income of the deceased towards the loss of future prospects. The monthly income of the deceased was thus assessed at Rs.8000/-+Rs.3200/- equaling the monthly salary to Rs.11,200/- and deduction of 50% was made on account of personal expenses, thus, the loss of dependency 3 ( 2025:HHC:33792 ) was assessed at Rs.5600/- per month. The age of the deceased was found 30 years at the time of death and accordingly the multiplier of 17 was applied. Int his manner, total loss of dependency was assessed at Rs.5600/-x12x 17= Rs.11,42,400/-. 6. As noticed above, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded by the learned Tribunal to the claimants for loss of love and affection and another sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. 7. Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate, representing the insurer would contend that the claimants being the brothers of the deceased were not entitled to the compensation on account of loss of dependency as there was no evidence that the claimants were dependent for their livelihood on the deceased. He has further submitted that in terms of the judgment passed by the constitutional bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, the claimants were entitled to Rs.15,000/- only on account of loss of estate and nothing was payable to the claimants on account of love and affection as awarded by the learned Tribunal. According to Dr. Sharma, the claimants at the most can be held entitled to loss of estate and nothing more. 4 ( 2025:HHC:33792 ) 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants have supported the award. 9. From the reply filed by the appellant-insurer before the learned Tribunal, it can be made out that any objection as to the maintainability of petition on behalf of the claimants, as is now sought to be raised, had been taken. That being so, no specific issue had been framed. Thus, the appellant cannot raise the ground of maintainability of petition in the appeal for the first time. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even if no specific pleading was there, in appeal the insurer could still take the ground as being a pure question of law. The contention so raised deserves to be rejected for the reason that the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is definitely maintainable if filed by the legal representatives. Whether the claimant is the legal representative, is the question of fact. Another question of fact is whether such legal representative was dependent on the deceased and to what extent. Since, there was no specific plea by the insurer or the insured before the learned Tribunal, such question of fact could not have been gone into and for such reason the ground now sought to be raised cannot be countenanced. 5 ( 2025:HHC:33792 ) 11. Even otherwise, recently in Jitender Kumar & Anr. vs. Sanjay Prasad & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 7199 of 2025, decided on 22.05.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held even those legal representatives entitled for compensation who were not dependent on the deceased. Thus, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award save and except to the extent it is not in consonance with the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 (supra), according to which the claimants would be entitled to compensation of Rs.15000/- on account of loss of estate in stead of Rs.1,00,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal on account of loss of love and affection. 12. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of by modifying the impugned award to the extent that in addition to Rs.11,42,400/- on account of loss of dependency, the claimants will be entitled to Rs.15,000/- each under the heads “loss of estate and funeral expenses”. The claimants shall also be entitled to interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The impugned award stands modified to this extent only. 6 ( 2025:HHC:33792 ) 13. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 14. Records be sent back forthwith. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 6th October, 2025. (jai)