[Cites 23, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. ... vs Masilamani M. Chettiar And Ors. on 16 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:12718 905-FA-1193-2025
Navnath Waghmare (P.A)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO 1193 OF 2025
Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. ...Applicant
Versus
John Philip Rodrigues (Insured) And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
CROSS-OBJECTION (ST) NO. 29187 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 9179 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION 11371 OF 2025
John Philip Rodrigues (Insured) And Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. ...Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 3278 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1406 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1405 OF 2025
Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. ...Applicant
Versus
Masilamani M. Chettiar and Ors ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLIATION (ST) NO. 19845 OF 2025
Masilamani M. Chettiar and Ors ...Applicants
Versus
Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. ...Respondent
Ms. Kalpana Trivedi a/w Shreenath Trivedi for the Applicant.
Mr. T.J. Mendon, a/w Tulshiram Kale a/w Aaditya V. Kode,
Advdhut Bidaye i/b Bidaye & Associates for the Respondent Nos.3
and 4 in FA 1193 of 2025 and Respondent in FA(ST) 3278 of
2025.
Page 1 of 19
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2026 20:33:55 :::
905-FA-1193-2025
Mr. Tushar Shingte, a/w Vasant More, Saif Kazmi for the
Respondent N No. 1 & 2.
CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.
RESERVED ON 27th FEBRUARY, 2026
JUDGMENT:
- PRONOUNCED ON 16th MARCH, 2026
1. By consent of both sides heard and decided together, since
both appeals arise from same judgment and award dated
12.03.2025 passed in MACP No. 1142 of 2021.
2. Insurer, filed appeal challenging claimants right to seek
compensation and quantum of compensation and instant thereon
being excessive / exorbitant.
3. Whereas, original opponent No.1 and 2, i.e. parents in law
of deceased, filed appeal as it is held by Tribunal that they are not
entitled to receive any compensation.
4. Learned counsel for insurer drew attention of Court to the
evidence on record to contend that Tribunal granted excessive
compensation ignoring material evidence on record. She also took
exception to the interest awarded by Tribunal to be on higher side.
5. Learned counsel for the original claimants i.e. Parents of
deceased, so also original Opponents No.1 and 2 i.e. parents in
905-FA-1193-2025
law, supported judgment of the entirety and to extent of quantum,
respectively.
6. Learned counsel for the parents in law of deceased submits
that Tribunal committed error in denying compensation to them on
the ground that they are neither legal representatives of deceased
nor were dependent upon her. He drew attention of Court to claim
petition filed by parents of deceased, wherein it is not pleaded
that parents in law are neither legal representatives nor dependent
upon deceased. Similarly, it is not so claimed in the evidence on
oath by claimant. It is therefore submitted that Tribunal could not
have denied compensation to them, without objection being taken
to that effect. According to him the term legal representative has
been interpreted by Supreme Court which includes even a person
who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and though not
necessarily legal heir. It is further held that legal heir are persons,
who are entitled to inherit estate of the deceased and legal heir
may also be legal representative. To support this submission he
placed reliance on N. Jayasree & Ors v. Cholamandalam MS
General Insurance Company Limited (2022) 14 SCC 712 and
Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel and Anr. Vs. United Insurance &
Anr (2014) 3 SCC 394. He further submitted that in view of
identical provision of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (
Section 110 A of of the old Act), the judgment of Gujrat State
Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad Vs. Ramanbhai
Prabhatbhai & Anr (1987) 3 SCC 234 is applicable to the present
case, where the claim filed by brothers of deceased is held to be
905-FA-1193-2025
reasonable. Finally he took aid of judgment of Supreme Court in
the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Birender and Ors 2020,
ACJ 759 and judgment of this Court in the case of Bajaj Alianz
General Insurance Co. ltd. Vs. Sunita Veredra (2025) 1 Mah LJ-
368, to buttress his submissions.
7. Learned counsel for the claimants i.e. parents of deceased,
supported exclusion of in-laws from entitlement of receipt of
compensation. It is his contention that deceased is a Christian and
Parents-in-law are not legal representative being not legal heirs of
deceased. According to him since claimants are entitled to inherit
estate of deceased, they became legal representative of deceased.
To support his submissions, reliance is placed on Manohar Maruti
Ghule Vs. Dang Sanjeev 2014 ACJ -717 , Bombay High Court.
Devaki Vs. The Managing director KSRTC, MACA No. 1787 of 2021
Kerala High Court and Glory bai Vs. S.K.A Noorjahan Beevi & ors
2013 ACJ 32, Madras High Court. He further argued that Parents-
in-law of deceased had filed claim petitions on death of husband
and son of deceased & also received compensation and therefore
they are not entitled to get any amount of compensation in this
proceedings.
8. In an unfortunate accident occurred on 01.07.2021, Ms.
Luiza Jeromita Rodrigues @ Luiza Joaquim Chettiar and her
husband and son died. They were traveling in Motor Car bearing
No. MH-48-AW-2796 and were dashed by offending vehicle, i.e.
motor trailer No. GJ-12-BV 4687. Deceased was aged 35 years and
905-FA-1193-2025
employed with Colgate Palmolive India Ltd., drawing salary of Rs.
59,500/-p.m., parents of deceased filed claim, joining her parents-
in-law as opponents.
9. Owner of offending vehicle failed to appear before Tribunal
inspite of service and hence claims preceded ex-parte. Insurer
however contested claim by filing written statement & challenging
evidence led by claimants. The claimants have proved age and
income of the deceased by examining Venkatraman Ramchandra
(AW2). Nothing could be elicited by Insurer in his cross
examination to disbelieve his testimony. The claimants therefore
succeeded in proving the employment and income of deceased.
Similarly, there is no dispute about correct application of
multiplier and addition of future prospects. On the basis of
evidence on record, this Court found, no perversity in the
determination of amount of compensation by Tribunal, so also,
grant of interest @ 7% is fully justified.
10. Now question arises whether the Appellants/ Parents-in-law
of the deceased would be entitled to receive compensation on
account of death of deceased. Tribunal held that parents-in-law of
deceased had received compensation on account of death of their
Son and Grandson, so also get service benefit of son and the
parents of deceased having obtained succession certificate from
competent Court. On these two counts, Tribunal excluded parents-
in-law from entitlement to receive compensation. At this stage it
905-FA-1193-2025
would be relevant to take note of provisions of Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, which reads thus:
CHAPTER- XII CLAIMS TRIBUNALS
Section 166. Application for compensation
"(1) An application for compensation arising out
of an accident of the nature specified in sub-
section (1) of section 165 may be made-
(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or
(b) by the owner of the property; or
(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by
all or any of the legal representatives of the
deceased; or
(d) by any agent duly authorised by the person
injured or all or any of the legal representatives of
the deceased, as the case may be:
Provided that where all the legal representatives
of the deceased have not joined in any such
application for compensation, the application shall
be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the
legal representatives of the deceased and the legal
representatives who have not so joined, shall be
impleaded as respondents to the application:
Provided further that where a person accepts
compensation under section 164 in accordance
with the procedure provided under section 149,
his claims petition before the Claims Tribunal shall
lapse.
(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall
be made, at the option of the claimant, either to
905-FA-1193-2025
the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the
area in which the accident occurred or to the
Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on
business or within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in
such form and contain such particulars as may be
prescribed:
(3) No application for compensation shall be
entertained unless it is made within six months of
the occurrence of the accident.
(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of
accidents forwarded to it under [section 159] as
an application for compensation under this Act.
(5) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any
other law for the time being in force, the right of a
person to claim compensation for injury in an
accident shall, upon the death of the person
injured, survive to his legal representatives,
irrespective of whether the cause of death is
relatable to or had any nexus with the injury or
not."
11. Perusal of this provision indicates that application for
compensation may be made by legal representatives of the
deceased when death has resulted from accident involving Motor
Vehicle. The proviso further indicates that in the application for
claim of compensation, all legal representatives shall be impleaded
as respondents.
905-FA-1193-2025
12. In the backdrop of the said provision, parents-in-law are
joined as party opponents to the claim petition. It is nowhere
stated in the petition that they are neither dependents on deceased
nor it is specifically claimed that parents-in-law are not entitled to
seek / receive any compensation. Pertinently, claimant No.1 in his
evidence does not claim so. It seems that only at the time of
arguments before Tribunal, challenge is raised to the right to
receive compensation of them. Moreover, from the impugned
judgment and award it appears that the said objection was mainly
for the reason that the parents-in-law of deceased received service
benefits of their son and also compensation on account of death of
son and grandson. To support such claim reliance is placed on
Succession Certificate obtained by parents of deceased from
Competent Court.
13. The term legal representative has not been defined in the
Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of N Jaysree (supra) has
dealt with the same and observed that:
"14. The MV Act does not define the term "legal
representative". Generally, legal representative means a
person who in law represents the estate of the deceased
person and includes any person or persons in who legal
right to receive compensatory benefit vests. A "legal
representative" may also include any person who
intermeddles with the estate of the deceased. Such person
does not necessarily have to be a legal heir. Legal heir are
the persons who are entitled to inherit the surviving
905-FA-1193-2025
estate of deceased. A legal heir may also be a legal
representative.
15. Indicatively for the present inquiry, the Kerala Motor
Vehicles Rules, define the term " legal representative"
as under:
"2.(k) Legal representative" means a person who in
law is entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased if he
had left any estate at the time of his death and also
includes any legal heir of the deceased and the executor
or administrator of the estate of the deceased."
"16. In our view, the term "legal representative" should be
given a wider interpretation for the purpose of Chapter
XII of the MV Act and it should not be confined only to
mean the spouse, parents and children of the deceased.
As noticed above, the MV Act is a benevolent legislation
enacted for the object of providing monetary relief to the
victims or their families. Therefore, the underlying the
enactment and fulfil its legislation intent. We are also of
the view that in order to maintain a claim petition, it is
sufficient for the claimant to establish his loss of
dependency. Section 166 of the MV Act makes it clear that
every legal representative who suffers on account of the
death of a person in a motor vehicle accident should have
a remedy for realisation of compensation.
14. It is thus held that the term "legal representatives" is not
confined to the spouse, parents or children of deceased.
Considering the object of providing monetary relief to the victims
or their families, it is sufficient that the claimant is dependent and
establishes loss of dependency. It is further made clear there that
905-FA-1193-2025
every legal representative who suffers on account of death of a
person in a motor vehicular accident should have a remedy for
compensation.
15. Similarly in case of Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation
(supra) in para 11 to 13 of judgment it is held that:
"11.Clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section
110-A of the Act provide that an application for compensation
arising out of an accident may be made where death has
resulted from the accident by all or any of the legal
representatives of the deceased or by any agent duly
authorised by all or any of the legal representatives of the
deceased. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 110-A
provides that where all the legal representatives of the
deceased have not joined in any such application for
compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for
the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and
the legal representatives who have not so joined shall be
impleaded as respondents to the application. The expression
"legal representative" has not been defined in the Act. Section
2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 defines "legal
representative as a person who in law represents the estate of
a deceased person and includes any person who intermeddles
with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is
sued in a representative character the person on whom the
estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. The
905-FA-1193-2025
above definition, no doubt, in terms does not apply to a case
before the Claims Tribunal but it has to be stated that even in
ordinary parlance the said expression is understood almost in
the same way in which it is defined in the Code of Civil
Procedure. A legal representative ordinarily means a person
who in law represents the estate of a deceased person or a
person on whom the estate devolves on the death of an
individual. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 110-A of
the Act authorises all or any of the legal representatives of the
deceased to make an application for compensation before the
Claims Tribunal for the death of the deceased on account of a
motor vehicle accident and clause (c) of that sub-section
authorises any agent duly authorised by all or any of the legal
representatives of the deceased to make it. The proviso to sub-
section (1) of Section 110-A of the Act appears to be of some
significance. It provides that the application for compensation
shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal
representatives of the deceased. Section 110-A(1) of the Act
thus expressly states that (i) an application for compensation
may be made by the legal representatives of the deceased or
their agent, and (ii) that such application shall be made on
behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives. Both
the person or persons who can make an application for
compensation and the persons for whose benefit such
application can be made are thus indicated in Section 110-A of
the Act. This section in a way is al substitute to the extent
indicated above for the provisions of Section 1-A of the Fatal
905-FA-1193-2025
Accidents Act, 1855 which provides that "every such action or
suit shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent and
child, if any, of the person whose death shall have been so
caused, and shall be brought by and in the name of the
executor, administrator or representative of the person
deceased". While the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 provides that
such suit shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent
and child of the deceased. Section 110-A(1) of the Act says
that the application shall be made on behalf of or for the
benefit of the legal representatives of the deceased. A legal
representative in a given case need not necessarily be a wife,
husband, parent and child. It is further seen from Section 110-
B of the Act that the Claims Tribunal is authorised to make an
award determining the amount of compensation which
appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to
whom compensation shall be paid. This provision takes the
place of the third para of Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents
Act, 1855 which provides that in every such action, the court
may give such damages as it may think proportioned to the
loss resulting from such death to the parties respectively, for
whom and for whose benefit such action shall be brought.
Persons for whose benefit such an application can be made and
the manner in which the compensation awarded may be
distributed amongst the persons for whose benefit the
application is made are dealt with by Section 110-A and
Section 110-B of the Act and to that extent the provisions of
the Act do supersede the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act,
905-FA-1193-2025
1855 insofar as motor vehicle accidents are concerned.
These provisions are not merely procedural provisions. They
substantively affect the rights of the parties. As the right of
action created by the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 was "new in its
species, new in its quality, new in its principles, in every way
new" the right given to the legal representatives under the Act
to file an application for compensation for death due to a
motor vehicle accident is equally new and an enlarged one.
This new right cannot be hedged in by all the limitations of an
action under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. New situations and
new dangers require new strategies and new remedies.
12. Amongst the High Courts in India there is a cleavage
in the opinion as regards the maintainability of action
under Section 110-A of the Act by persons other than the wife,
husband, parent and child of the person who dies on account
of a motor vehicle accident. All these cases are considered by
the High Court of Gujarat in its decision in Megjibhai Khimjı
Vira v. Chaturbhai Taljabhai.2The first set of cases are those
which are referred to in para 5 of the above decision which lay
down that every claim application for compensation arising out
of a fatal accident would be governed by the substantive
provisions in Sections 1-A and 2 of the 1855 Act and no
dependent of the deceased other than the wife, husband,
parent or child would be entitled to commence an action for
damages against the tortfeasors. Amongst these cases are P.B.
Kader v. Thatchamma 5and Dewan Hari Chand vs Municipal
Corporation of Delhi.6 The second group of cases are those
905-FA-1193-2025
referred to in para 6 of the decision of the Gujarat High
Court. They are Perumal v. G. Ellusamy Reddiar7 & Vanguard
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chellu Hanumantha Rao8. These cases lay
down that while the compensation payable under Section 1-A
of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 is restricted to the relatives of
the deceased named therein the compensation payable under
Section 2 thereof may be awarded in favour of the
representatives of the deceased who are entitled to succeed to
the estate of the deceased. The third group of cases are those
referred to in para 7 of the judgment of the Gujarat High
Court. They are Mohammed Habibulla V.K. Seethammal 9,
Veena Kumari Kohli vs. Punjab Roadways10 and Ishwar Devi
Malik Smt v. Union of India11 which take the view that a claim
for compensation arising out of the use of a motor vehicle
would be exclusively governed by the provisions of Sections
110 to 110-F of the Act and bears no connection to claims
under the 1855 Act and the Claims Tribunal need not follow
the principles laid down under the latter Act. Having
considered all the three sets of decisions referred to above,
Ahmadi, J. who wrote the judgment in Megjibhai Khimji Vira v.
Chaturbhai Taljabhai2 came to the conclusion that an
application made by the nephews of the deceased who died on
account of a motor vehicle accident was clearly maintainable
under Section 110-A of the Act.
13. We feel that the view taken by the Gujarat High
Court is in consonance with the principles of justice, equity and
good conscience having regard to the conditions of the Indian
905-FA-1193-2025
society. Every legal representative who suffers on account of
the death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident should
have a remedy for realisation of compensation and that is
provided by Sections 110-A to 110-F of the Act. These
provisions are in consonance with the principles of law of torts
that every injury must have a remedy. It is for the Motor
Vehicles Accidents Tribunal to determine the compensation
which appears to it to be just as provided in Section 110-B of
the Act and to specify the person or persons to whom
compensation shall be paid. The determination of the
compensation payable and its apportionment as required by
Section 110-B of the Act amongst the legal representatives for
whose benefit an application may be filed under Section 110-
A of the Act have to be done in accordance with well-known
principles of law. We should remember that in an Indian family
brothers, sisters and brothers' children and some times foster
children live together and they are dependent upon the bread-
winner of the family and if the bread-winner is killed on
account of a motor vehicle accident, there is no Justification to
deny them compensation relying upon the provisions of the
Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which as we have already held has
been substantially modified by the provisions contained in the
Act in relation to cases arising out of motor vehicles accidents.
We express our approval of the decision in Megjibhai Khimji
Vira v. Chaturbhai Taljabhar2 and hold that the brother of a
person who dies in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to
905-FA-1193-2025
maintain a petition under Section 110-A of the Act if he is a
legal representative of the deceased."
16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Montford Brothers
(supra) held that where the deceased who renounced the family
and joined Church, on account of her accidental death, the claim
petition filed by Church is held maintainable.
17. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court therefore
distinguishes the entitlement of legal heir to inherit estate of
deceased and right of a legal representative to seek compensation
on the ground of loss of dependency. There is no dispute about the
fact that in the present case legal heir of deceased would be
entitled to inherit her estate, however it cannot be said so in
respect of claim for compensation on account of loss of
dependency.
18. In the case in hand, certain facts are undisputed such as
deceased married to son of Appellants and the said marriage
subsisted till unfortunate death of both. The parents-in-law are
joined as party opponents to the claim petition in terms of proviso
to Section 166 of the Act. There is no pleadings that the parents-
in-law were neither dependent on deceased nor such contention
appears in evidence on oath of claimant No.1. thus practically no
dispute is made by the claimants i.e. parents of deceased about
the parents-in-law being not 'legal representatives' of the
deceased. In such case, the tribunal without such plea being raised
905-FA-1193-2025
in claim petition ought not to have accepted arguments made on
behalf of claimant for exclusion of parents-in-law to receive
compensation on account of loss of dependency.
19. In our society unless otherwise established there is reason to
believe that even after marriage, a daughter takes care of her
parents so also parents-in-law Both parents-in-law as well as
parents are required to be considered as dependents on deceased,
in absence of any contrary evidence. In respect of the estate left
behind by the deceased, legal heir would be entitled to claim the
same, however, the compensation on account of loss of
dependency, would not be considered as estate left behind by
deceased in order to only legal heir to be entitled to receive the
same. To hold so, would be contrary to the law settled by the
Hon'ble Supreme court, in above cited judgment on behalf of
parents-in-law. These judgment squarely apply to the present case.
20. On the other hand, judgment in case of Mantford (supra)
holds that parents of deceased married lady are entitled to
maintain claim for compensation, Kerala High Court in case of
Devaki (supra) has dealt with the right of legal heir to receive
estate of deceased. In case of Glory Bai (Supra) Madras High
Court has held that father-in-law as legal representative can seek
compensation on account of death of daughter-in-law in motor
vehicular accident.
905-FA-1193-2025
21. In the case in hand, what seems weighed to Tribunal for
denying compensation to parents-in-law is that parents had
obtained succession certificate and that parents-in-law received
employment benefits of their son and compensation for death of
Son & Grandson. As held above, person who is dependant upon
the deceased is included in term 'legal representative' and
therefore obtainment of succession certificate by parents of
deceased, would not become ground to deny compensation to
parents-in-law who are legal representatives & dependents upon
deceased. Similarly, receipt of compensation by parents-in-law of
deceased on account of death of their son and grandson, can never
become a reason for denying them compensation. What tribunal
would have done is to consider the said fact, while apportionment
of compensation amount. The findings recorded by tribunal
denying right of compensation therefore cannot sustain and
deserves interference.
22. Considering the fact that the parents-in-law have received
compensation on account of death of their son, they are held to be
entitled to receive 1/3rd compensation in present claim. The
remaining 2/3rd compensation would be received by claimants
i.e. parents of decease. Impugned judgment and order also
therefore stands modified to that extent.
23. Hence, the following order:
i. Appeal filed by Insurer stands dismissed.
905-FA-1193-2025
ii. Appeal filed by Original Opponent No. 1 and 2 stands partly
allowed.
iii. It is held that original claimants shall be entitled to receive
2/3rd compensation and parents-in-law i.e. original
opponent No.1 and 2 to receive 1/3rd compensation out of the
total amount of compensation granted by tribunal.
iv. Rest of the judgment and award is maintained.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
{
