1 CGHC010136732024 2026:CGHC:31607 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 867 of 2024 1 - The United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Branch Office At Gurudwara Road, Durg, Parakh Complex, Near State Bank, Tehsil And District-Durg (C.G.) ------ (Insurer) ... Appellant versus 1 - Shankarlal Nirmalkar S/o Late Birsingh Nirmalkar, Aged About 40 Years R/o Gaurinagar, Ward No. 12, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ---- (Claimant) 2 - Sushilabai D/o Late Birsingh Nirmalkar, Aged About 38 Years W/o Madanlal R/o Stationpara, Ward No.11, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ---- (Claimant) 3 - Rukhmani Nirmalkar D/o Late Birsingh Nirmalkar, Aged About 36 Years W/o Raghunandan Nirmalkar, R/o Gaurinagar, Ward No. 14, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ---- (Claimant) 4 - Purnima Nirmalkar D/o Late Birsingh Nirmalkar, Aged About 29 Years W/o Narendra Nirmalkar, R/o Gaurinagar, Ward No. 12, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ---- (Claimant) 5 - Shyam Choubey S/o Vishnuprasad Choubey, Aged About 48 Years Occupation- Driver, Car No. CG 07 BE 0217, R/o Street BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.07.27 14:42:13 +0530 2 No.4, Shanti Nagar, P.S.- Kotwali, Tehsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---- (Driver) 6 - Pravir Mohan Singh S/o Dharamsingh Rajpur, Occupation- Vehicle Owner, Car No. CG 07 Be 0217 R/o Laxmi Printing Press Street, Pachripara, Ward No. 28, Durg, Tehsil And District- Durg (Cg) ----- (Owner) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 23 / 07 / 2026 1. It is an insurer’s appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the award dated 09.10.2023 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (CG) in Claim Case No.179/2021 whereby a total compensation of Rs.4,82,000/- has been awarded in favour of respondents No.1 to 4/claimants on account of the death of Meena Bai @ Khorbahrim Bai, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 01.01.2021. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company assails the impugned award on two grounds. Firstly, it is contended that out of the four claimants, three are married daughters and, therefore, they could not have been treated as dependants of the deceased. Consequently, the Tribunal ought to have deducted one-third of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses instead of one- 3 fourth. Secondly, it is submitted that there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy inasmuch as the offending vehicle was allegedly not possessing a valid permit and fitness certificate on the date of the accident. Despite such breach, the learned Tribunal has erroneously fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company. It is, therefore, prayed that the appellant–Insurance Company be exonerated from its liability. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4/claimants supports the impugned award and submits that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of the pleadings and evidence available on record. It is argued that the award is just, proper and does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the entire record with due care. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering a similar issue in National Insurance Company Vs. Birender, AIR 2020 SC 434, held that in cases involving the motor vehicle accident, even the major, married and earning sons or daughters (or other legal representatives) of the deceased have their right to apply for compensation and the Tribunal must consider their application regardless of whether they were fully dependent on the deceased. 6. The aforesaid principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Birender (supra) has subsequently been followed in Seema Rani and Others v. Oriental Insurance4 wherein it 4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 283 4 has been held that there is no reason to exclude a married daughter from compensation. 7. Following the aforesaid principle of law, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Narinder Kaur versus Jagmeet Singh 2025 ACJ 357 has also held that dependency is a relative criteria to claim compensation for loss of dependency but it is not limited to financial dependency. Dependency includes gratuitous service dependency, physical dependency, emotional dependency and psychological dependency which cannot be equated in terms of money. Paragraphs 22, 23, and 24 of the said judgment, being relevant for the present case, are reproduced hereunder: “22. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that since the sons are grown up children of deceased and they ought to be settled in their lives and also father of deceased Karnail Singh ought to have his own source of livelihood, therefore, they were not dependent upon the earning of the deceased and therefore, compensation ought to be denied them. However, the aforesaid submission is not tenable. 23. No doubt, the sons of both the deceased are major and even compensation has been sought at the instance of Balbir Singh, father of deceased Karnail Singh, but out rightly it cannot be concluded about they being not dependents upon the deceased. It should be noticed that in the Indian Society the children as well as the parents remain dependents upon each other at various stages of life. It is pertinent to mention that the word ‘dependent has a different meaning in different connotations. Some may be dependent in terms of money and others may be dependent in terms of service. 24. Thus, dependency is a relative criteria to claim compensation for loss of dependency. It does not mean financial only. It also includes gratuitous service dependency, physical dependency, emotional dependency, psychological dependency and so on and so forth, which can never be equated in term of money. Thus considering the same, even the major 5 sons of both the deceased as well as father of deceased Karnail Singh ought not to be deprived of the compensation. ………” 8. Insofar as the first ground raised by the appellant is concerned, it is the objection of the claimants that the Insurance Company has neither made any pleading nor adduced any evidence in this regard. No evidence has been adduced by the Insurance Company to substantiate such a plea. The only witness examined on behalf of the claimants is Smt. Sushila Bai (AW-1), who has merely deposed that her marriage was solemnized about 20–30 years prior to the accident and that the marriages of her sisters, namely, Sukmani and Poornima, had taken place about 10–15 years earlier. Significantly, no suggestion was put to the said witness during cross-examination that the married daughters had severed their relationship with the deceased, had no occasion to visit her, or were not in any manner dependent upon her. In the absence of any pleading or evidence in this regard, the Tribunal has rightly deducted one-fourth of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses. Thus, the first ground raised by the appellant stands rejected. 9. Coming to the second ground relating to the alleged breach of policy conditions, it is well settled that the burden of proving breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy squarely lies upon the insurer. In the present case, no witness has been examined on behalf of the appellant. Neither the owner nor the driver of the offending vehicle has been examined. Further, no material has been brought on record to show that the Insurance Company had issued any notice to the owner of the vehicle calling upon him to produce the permit or the fitness certificate, so as to 6 ascertain as to whether the vehicle in fact had valid fitness and permit or not. Mere non-production of the permit or fitness certificate by itself is not sufficient to establish breach of policy conditions. In the absence of cogent and reliable evidence, the appellant has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. Hence, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that the Insurance Company has failed to prove the alleged breach of policy is based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record and does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is well reasoned, just and proper, and does not call for any interference in the present appeal. 11. The appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. 12. The records of the Tribunal, along with a copy of this order, be transmitted forthwith for information, compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai