Uttarakhand High Court
Smt. Kamla Devi vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And ... on 25 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Appeal From Order No.251 of 2020
Smt. Kamla Devi .... Appellant
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others
......... Respondents
Judgment reserved on: 19.09.2025
Judgment delivered on: 25.09.2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Saurabh Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. I.P. Kohli and Mr. Kanti Ram Sharma, learned counsels for
respondent no.1/insurance company.
Mr. Mayank Pandey, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
The instant appeal has been instituted by the
appellant-claimant, namely, the mother of the deceased,
invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act, 1988"). The challenge is confined
to the quantum of compensation, with a prayer for
enhancement of her share as determined by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/First Additional District Judge,
Haldwani, vide judgment and award dated 18.10.2019,
rendered in M.A.C.P. No.146 of 2018. By the said award,
learned Tribunal was pleased to grant a sum of
₹10,00,000/- in favour of the present appellant, together
with interest @ 6% per annum, payable from the date of
institution of the claim petition till the date of actual
realization, fastening liability upon the respondent-
Insurance Company.
2. The brief factual conspectus, as emerges from
the record, is that on 09.06.2018, at about 07:00 p.m.,
the husband of respondent no.2, namely, late Parvendra
Singh @ Pappu Karki, was travelling in a motor car
bearing registration No. UK04-H-7447, along with his
companions, proceeding from Gauniyaro to Haldwani.
When the said vehicle reached in the vicinity of Village
Murkudia Haidakhan, the driver, Pushkar Singh, in a
rash and negligent manner, lost control of the vehicle,
causing it to plunge into a deep gorge. As a direct
consequence of the said accident, late Parvendra Singh @
Pappu Karki, the driver Pushkar Singh, and one other
occupant of the vehicle sustained fatal injuries and
succumbed at the spot, while two other co-passengers
suffered grievous bodily injuries. The occurrence of the
unfortunate incident was forthwith intimated to Police
Station Patti Rousil, whereupon First Information Report
being Case Crime No. 02 of 2018 came to be registered,
under Sections 279, 304-A, 337 and 338 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant, while
advancing his submissions, has vehemently contended
that the learned Tribunal fell in grave error in failing to
duly appreciate the fact that the present appellant is
none other than the mother of the deceased, and was a
rightful claimant before the Tribunal. It has been urged
that the Tribunal, while determining the compensation,
overlooked the vital circumstance that the appellant is an
elderly widow of about 63 years of age, who has no
independent means of livelihood and was wholly
dependent upon the financial support and care of her
deceased son. Learned counsel has further submitted
that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family,
and, upon his untimely demise, the appellant has been
left in a pitiable condition, without any sustainable
source of income to meet even her elementary needs of
food, shelter, medical care and day-to-day living. It is
further contended that the learned Tribunal erred in
awarding a meagre sum of ₹10,00,000/- to the appellant
which, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be
"just compensation" within the meaning of Section 168 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Learned counsel has
strenuously argued that the Tribunal, while apportioning
the compensation, acted contrary to the settled principles
of law, inasmuch as, it failed to distribute the award
equitably amongst all the claimants, and
disproportionately favoured the widow and minor son of
the deceased, thereby relegating the mother-appellant to
a position of near exclusion. Such distribution, it is
urged, is neither in consonance with statutory principles
nor with the mandate of natural justice, which requires
equal and fair consideration of the rights of all
dependents of the deceased. Learned counsel has also
drawn attention to the evolving jurisprudence of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to "consortium" and
"loss of dependency," and submitted that the Tribunal
has completely disregarded the head of "filial consortium"
as recognized in authoritative pronouncements,
particularly in "Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, reported in (2018)
18 SCC 130, wherein it has been categorically held that
parents are entitled to compensation on account of the
loss of love, affection, care, protection and
companionship of their children. He submits that despite
the appellant being the mother of the deceased and
clearly falling within the category of Class-I dependents
entitled to such recognition, the Tribunal has failed to
award any substantial amount towards this head,
thereby causing manifest injustice. It has further been
urged that the Tribunal's approach suffers from non-
application of mind, inasmuch as, it has not taken into
account the peculiar hardship faced by an aged mother,
who, after the demise of her only son, has been left
destitute and without any succour. Learned counsel
submits that the impugned award, in so far as it pertains
to the appellant, is not only inadequate but also arbitrary
and liable to be modified by this Court. Accordingly, it is
prayed that the award be suitably enhanced by granting
to the appellant a fair and reasonable share of the
compensation, commensurate with her status as a
dependent, and in recognition of her right to filial
consortium, so that she may live the remainder of her life
with dignity.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the insurance company as well as respondent
no.2, the widow of the deceased, has sought to justify the
award rendered by the learned Tribunal. It has been
urged that the Tribunal, upon a careful appreciation of
the evidence on record, rightly held the widow and minor
son of the deceased to be the primary dependents and
natural heirs, who were directly and substantially
affected by the untimely demise of the deceased. Learned
counsel contends that the widow, being deprived of her
husband's support, and the minor son, who has lost the
benefit of paternal care, affection, and long-term financial
sustenance, are entitled to the lion's share of the
compensation. It is further submitted that the Tribunal
adopted a fair and reasonable approach while granting a
token share to the mother-appellant, recognizing her
position as a dependent, but at the same time keeping in
view the paramount needs of the widow and the minor
son. Learned counsel would argue that the award cannot
be termed arbitrary merely because the apportionment
was unequal, since the law does not mandate an equal
distribution amongst all claimants, but rather a just and
reasonable apportionment based on the degree of
dependency.
5. It is well-settled that the expression "just
compensation" under Section 168 of the Act, 1988 has to
be determined in a manner so as to fairly balance the
loss suffered by all legal representatives of the deceased.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of "Sarla Verma
& Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another",
reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and, subsequently, in the
case of "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi & Others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, has laid
down guiding principles for computation. In Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the Court has
specifically recognized the right of parents to receive
compensation under the head of "filial consortium."
6. In a claim arising under the Motor Vehicles Act
for compensation on account of death, it is well-settled
that the determination of the proportion in which the
awarded compensation is to be apportioned amongst the
legal heirs lies within the sound discretion of the Court.
Such discretion is, however, not unfettered, but guided
by the principle of dependency, namely, the extent to
which each legal heir was dependent upon the deceased
at the time of his or her death. Accordingly, the Court
may direct distribution in unequal shares, keeping in
view the factual circumstances and the degree of
dependency, so as to ensure just and equitable
compensation to the claimants considering the peculiar
facts of the case.
7. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that
the appellant is the mother of the deceased, aged about
63 years, a widow, and without any independent source
of livelihood. The deceased was her only son, on whom
she was solely dependent for financial and emotional
support. Thus, the award of a meagre sum of
₹10,00,000/- in her favour, out of the total compensation
of Rs.90,01,776/-, cannot be said to be just or equitable.
The Tribunal appears to have disproportionately favoured
the widow of the deceased by granting her a sum of about
₹60,00,000/-, while the appellant, who equally falls
within the definition of "legal representative" and
"dependent," has been relegated to an almost token
amount. This Court is of the view that such
apportionment is arbitrary and warrants interference. At
the same time, the amount of ₹20,00,000/- awarded to
the minor son of the deceased by the Tribunal appears
just and reasonable, considering that he is a direct
dependent with long-term needs. This Court finds no
reason to disturb that share.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion and having
regard to the position of the parties as Class-I legal heirs
of the deceased under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
and considering the peculiar facts of the case, this Court
is of the considered view that the share of the appellant-
mother, being a dependent and a Class-I heir, merits
enhancement from ₹10,00,000/- to ₹20,00,000/-.
Correspondingly, the apportionment made in favour of
respondent no.2-widow of the deceased, who is also a
Class-I heir, is required to be suitably reduced from
₹60,00,000/- to ₹50,00,000/-, so as to maintain parity
and equity in distribution. The share of the minor son,
likewise a Class-I heir, as fixed by the Tribunal at
₹20,00,000/-, is found to be just and reasonable, and
accordingly, the same shall remain undisturbed.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and
the impugned judgment and award dated 18.10.2019
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/1st
Additional District Judge, Haldwani in M.A.C.P. No.146
of 2018 is hereby modified to the extent that the
compensation awarded to the appellant-mother of the
deceased, being a Class-I heir, is enhanced from
₹10,00,000/- to ₹20,00,000/-, the compensation granted
to respondent No.2-widow of the deceased, also a Class-I
heir, is reduced from ₹60,00,000/- to ₹50,00,000/-, the
compensation of ₹20,00,000/- awarded to the minor son,
being a Class-I heir, shall remain undisturbed, and the
rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal at 6% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization
shall remain unaltered.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
25.09.2025
BS
BALWAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02f
e2eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001,
T SINGH
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE
5185F418755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90,
cn=BALWANT SINGH
Date: 2025.09.25 13:28:29 +05'30'
