[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Deepak Gupta vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 13 February, 2026

Author: Sanjeev Kumar

Bench: Sanjeev Kumar

                                                                     2026:JKLHC-JMU:300




HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                 AT JAMMU

                                     MA No.518/2009
                                     c/w
                                     MA No.519/2009

                                    Reserved on: 06.02.2026
                                    Pronounced on: 13.02.2026
                                    Uploaded on: 13.02.2026

1.   Deepak Gupta, age 51 years S/o Late Sh. Narinjan Dass Gupta
     (N.D.Gupta).
2.   Anil Gupta, age 53 years S/o Late Sh. Narinjan dass Gupta
     (N.D.Gupta)
     Both residents of Quarter No.149, Sarwal Colony, Jammu.

                                                  ....Appellant(s)
                      Through:- Mr. Raghu Mehta, Advocate
Versus


1.    The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., B.O. Canal Road, Jammu
      through its I/C Branch Manager (Insurer of Bus No.JK02X-
      1731).
2.    Madan Lal S/o Sardari Lal Gupta R/o H.No.391 Gandhi Nagar,
      Jammu (Owner of the Bus No.JK02X-1731).

3.    Kulvinder Singh S/o Santokh Singh S/o Sarore Adda, Samba,
      District Samba (owner of the Bus No.JK02X-1731).
4.    Sukhvinder Singh alias Buntoo S/o Sh. Dhian singh Caste
      Labana Sikh R/o Sunjwan, Vijaypur, tehsil & District Samba
      (driver of the Bus No.JK02X-1731).
5.    The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
      B.O. College Road, Kathua Through its I/C
      Branch Manager (Insurer of Bus No.JK08-7129).
6.    Ravinder Singh S/o Sh. Jagdev Singh R/o Billawar, Tehsil
      Billawar, District Kathua (Owner of the Bus No.Jk028-7129).
7.    Nardev Singh S/o Sh. Isher Singh R/o Village Tilla, tehsil
      Billawar, District Kathua (Driver of Bus No.JK08-7129).

                                                 ....Respondents

               Through:- Mr. Amrit Sarin, Advocate for R-1

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
 MA Nos.518 & 519 of 2009                    2




                                                                        2026:JKLHC-JMU:300




                              JUDGMENT

1. These two civil miscellaneous appeals filed jointly by two

brothers, namely, Deepak Gupta and Anil Gupta arise out of a

common award dated 13th August, 2009 passed by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu ["the Tribunal"] in claim

petition Nos.708/Claim titled Deepak Gupta and another v. The

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & others and 709/Claim titled

Deepak Gupta and another v. The Oriental Insurance Company

Ltd and others, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed both the

claim petitions on the ground that the claim petitioners had not

arrayed their sisters as claimants.

2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of these appeals are

that on 01.11.2007, at about 9 am, a motor accident took place at

Berero Khad near Barian Camp Supwal in which a Maruti Van

bearing Registration No.JK02M-0615 was hit and crushed by

two offending Buses bearing Registration Nos. Nos.JK02X-1731

and JK028-7129. In the accident the parents of the petitioners,

namely, Narinjan Dass Gupta and Smt. Sushil Gupta lost their

lives.

3. The appellants, both major, filed claim petition before the

Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs.13.00 lac along with

interest @ 12% p.a. from various persons including the Oriental

Insurance Company Ltd on account of death of their father and

2026:JKLHC-JMU:300

another claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.11.70 lac

along with interest @ 12% p.a. on account of death of their

mother in the accident in question.

4. It was claimed that the deceased father was a retired Assistant

Education Officer from Himachal Pradesh Government and was

receiving a monthly income of Rs.13,000/- per month. The claim

was filed against both the Insurance Companies, with whic these

offending vehicles were insured with. The claim petition was

contested by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.- the

respondent No.1 herein. A similar claim petition was filed by the

petitioner in respect of the death of their mother, who, they

claimed was earning an income of Rs.10,000/- per month by

doing the work of knitting, sewing and embroidery etc.

5. In light of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the

following issues in the petitions as well as in the club matters:-

"1. Whether an accident occurred on 1.-11-2007 at Barero Khad near Baria Camp Supwal Tehsil and District Samba by involvement of two vehicles No.JK08 7129 and No.JK02X 1731 being driven in the hands of respective drivers in which deceased namely Anil Sharma, Neelam Gupta, N.D.Gupta and Sushil Gupta received fatal injuries? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioners in each case are entitled to the compensation; if so to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Whether drivers of both vehicles at the time of accident was not holding valid and effective driving license and drove the vehicles in contravention of terms and conditions of policy of insurance, RC, route permit and fitness? OPR 1 and 5

2026:JKLHC-JMU:300

4. Whether accident has occurred by the contributory negligence by the drivers of both vehicles, if so how and what is its effect? OPR 1 & 5

5. Whether claim petition are bad for misjoinder of parties, if so how? OPR 5

6. Whether on the date of accident vehicle No.JK02X 1731 had been transferred by the erstwhile owner, if so how and what it its effect? OPR 1

7. Relief. O.P. Parties."

6. With a view to substantiate their claim, the appellants got the

statement of only Deepak Gupta, one of the claimants, recorded

before the Tribunal. Deepak Gupta, in his deposition before the

Tribunal, has stated that Late Narinjan Dass Gupta and Sushil

Gupta were his parents, who died in a road traffic accident on 1 st

November, 2007 near Samba. His father was serving in Model

Academy and had retired as Assistant Education Officer. He was

getting Rs.10,000/- from pension. His mother was 76 years old at

the time of accident and was also earning Rs.10,000/- per month

by giving teaching classes in cutting, tailoring etc. It has also

come in his testimony that he was an engineer but because of

recession, he was unemployed for the last some years and that his

father was 87 years old. He has further deposed that appellant

No.2 lives in America and that he does not know how much he is

earning there. He has further stated that daughter of his brother is

studying in a medical college and both are in America. He,

however, denied that his parents were income tax payee and were

filing income tax returns. There is no evidence led by the

2026:JKLHC-JMU:300

appellants herein to prove either income of the deceased or their

own dependency.

7. It is true that it has not come either in the pleadings of the

appellants or their evidence that the deceased were survived by

legal heirs other than the appellants and, therefore, ought to have

joined them either as party claimants or proforma respondents in

the claim petition. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for

the appellants that in the absence of any material on record, the

Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the claim petition(s) only

for non-joinder of parties. I am also in agreement with the

learned counsel for the appellants that in such eventuality, the

Tribunal ought to have given an opportunity to the appellants to

array other legal heirs before proceeding in the claim petitions.

Unfortunately, this has not happened in the instant case.

8. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the appellants have not led

any cogent evidence, muchless a satisfactory one, to prove either

income of the deceased or their dependency. Bald assertions

made in the claim petition followed by statement of PW-Deepak

Kumar are not supported by any documentary evidence. In the

claim petition the appellants claimed that their father was a

District Education Officer, retired from Himachal Pradesh

without placing on record any pension papers. In the statement

made before the Tribunal, appellant No.1 claimed that his father

2026:JKLHC-JMU:300

was working in Model Academy and was Assistant Education

Officer without placing on record any documents/pension

payment certificate issued in favour of the deceased. It has also

come amply on record that the appellants were more than 50

years old and fully self sufficient. There is no indication of any of

the appellants being dependent upon their parents, who were in

the advance age at the time of accident.

9. In such a situation, it is difficult for this Court to come to any

conclusion about the loss of dependency suffered by the

appellants, more particularly, when there is no such evidence

worthy of credence led by the appellants.

10. This Court does not dispute the proposition of law that a major

legal heir of a person who has died in a motor accident can

maintain a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act. It can also be not disputed that even a legal heir,

who may not be dependent and does not suffer any loss of

dependency, can maintain a claim petiion. However, in case of

absence of loss of dependency, such claimant would only be

entitled to the sums payable under conventional heads.

11. Without going much into the rival contentions and having regard

to the fact that there is virtually no evidence on record led by the

appellants, I propose to dispose of both these appeals by

awarding compensation in the following manner:-

2026:JKLHC-JMU:300

Loss of estate : Rs.15,00.00 Funeral expenses : Rs.15,000.00 Loss of consortium @ 40,000/- each: Rs.80,000.00 Total : Rs.1,10,000.00

Loss of estate : Rs.15,00.00 Funeral expenses : Rs.15,000.00 Loss of consortium @ 40,000/- each: Rs.80,000.00

Total : Rs.1,10,000.00

Ordered accordingly.

The aforesaid amount minus the amount, if any, already received as interim award shall become payable to the appellants with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. Since it was a case of negligence by both the offending vehicles, as such, the insurer of both vehicles i.e. respondent No.1-The Oriental Insurance Company and respondent No.5-The New India Assurance Company shall satisfy the award in equal share and deposit the balance amount before the Registry of this Court. The Registry shall release the amount in terms of the modified award in favour of the claimant after verification and identification. Amount of compensation shall be apportioned between the appellants in equal shares.