# The Chief Engineer Irrigation Deptt. Lko. & Anr v. Ms. Tabassum

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 476
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-06
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 468 of 2011
- **Bench:** Jaspreet Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-chief-engineer-irrigation-deptt-lko-anr-v-ms-tabassum-53711
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Rajesh Trivedi, Shakeel Ahmad Ansari

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether a married daughter,
being a legal heir of deceased victims in a motor
accident claim, can be denied compensation
beyond statutory no-fault liability u/s 140 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the ground that she
is not a dependent, or whether she remains
entitled to full and just compensation u/s 166 of
Act as legal representative of deceased.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 140, 166 -
On
24.04.2009,
Aftab
Husain,
accompanied by his son, was travelling on
motorcycle towards the residence of
relative
when,
near
Bahad
Gram
Khushalganj,
Mohaan
Road,
a
truck
bearing being driven in rash and negligent
manner, collided with their motorcycle,
resulting in grievous injuries to both - They
were taken to Trauma Centre, where Aftab
Husain succumbed to his injuries on same
day, while his son expired during treatment
- Claimant-respondent, daughter of Aftab
Husain and sister of deceased, instituted
two separate claim petitions before Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal,
which
were
contested by State-appellants, who denied
accident
and
alleged
contributory
negligence by deceased - After appreciating
evidence,
Tribunal
held
that
accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving
of
offending
truck
and
awarded
compensation of ₹2,13,200/- for death of
Aftab Husain and ₹1,60,400/- for death of
his son, which awards were challenged by
State in instant appeals.
Held: Court holds that since claimant's husband
was employed abroad and she resided with her
8 All. The Chief Engineer Irrigation Deptt. Lko. & Anr. Vs. Ms. Tabassum
477
father and brother, her marital status does not
negate her dependency - Tribunal rightly
considered these facts and on a reasonable
assessment, awarded compensation of Rs.
2,13,200/- for her father's death and Rs.
1,60,400/- for her brother's death, which cannot
be termed excessive or unjust - It must be
borne in mind that human life holds immense
value and denying just compensation to legal
representative merely for lack of dependency,
by restricting it to no-fault liability amount as
prescribed u/s 140 of Act and adding some
amount
under
conventional
heads
would
amount to travesty of justice and a disregard for
loss of important human being caused by
another's
negligence
-
Tribunal's
findings
granting compensation to claimant can't be
faulted - As only contention raised pertained to
entitlement of married daughter and no other
ground urged, State's appeals being devoid of
merit, are dismissed - Awards in Claim Petitions
are affirmed - Any amount deposited shall be
remitted to Tribunal for release to claimant as
per award, and any shortfall shall be made good
with updated interest within sixty days. [Paras
28 to 31] (E-13)
Case Law Cited
Manjuri Bera v. The Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd. and others, (2007) 10 SCC 643; Chandra
Kala Sharma v. Mohd. Naushad, 2018 SCC
OnLine SC 2234; Deep Shikha v. National
Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1090; National Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Birender, (2020) 11 SCC 356; Seema Rani and
others v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others,
(2025) SCC OnLine SC 283; Jitendra Kumar
and another v. Sanjay Prasad and others, Civil
Appeal No. 710199 of 2025( Arising out of
SLP(C) No. 27779/2023); Sarla Verma
(Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation
and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121; National
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and
others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 - referred to

List of Acts
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

List of Keywords
Rash and negligent driving; Claim petitions;
Legal representative / Legal heir; Married
daughter; Dependency / Loss of dependency;
No-fault liability; Multiplier system; Quantum of
compensation / Just and fair compensation;
Compute
/
Calculation
of
compensation;
Entitlement to compensation; Deduction on
account of dependency; Exorbitant or unfair;
Record of Tribunal be returned forthwith; Not
entitled to be deprived of compensation.

Case Arising From
APPEL

## Text

476 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as provided under para 228 of the Uttar
Pradesh Police Regulations. Above matter
is related to Cow Slaughter Act. Since only
one case has been registered against the
petitioner before 8 years of the incident in
the year 2016, it cannot be said that the
petitioner is habitual offender of cattle theft
as mentioned in Caw Slaughter Act. Para
240 of Uttar Pradesh Police Regulation
provides opening of history-sheet on the
basis of 'suspicion' and on the basis of
conviction or acquittal, but it requires same
cogent and reliable material to frame basis
of reliable and reasonable suspicion.

14. We are satisfied that there was no
sufficient ground to entertain a reasonable
belief that surveillance was required in the
case of the petitioner. There exists no
evidence to support the act of opening of
the history sheet No.18-A of the petitioner
at Police Station Bhawaniganj, District
Siddharthnagar and, therefore, it deserves
to be quashed.

15. In the result, the writ petition, is
allowed. The order dated 23.06.2025
passed by respondent no.3, Superintendent
of Police, Siddharthnagar is quashed. The
respondents are directed to close the
present history sheet No. 18-A of the
petitioner and not to keep surveillance on
the petitioner, in pursuance of the said
history-sheet.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 476
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 468 of 2011
&
First Appeal From Order No. 467 of 2011
The Chief Engineer Irrigation Deptt. Lko. &
Anr. ...Appellant
Versus
Ms. Tabassum ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondent:
Rajesh Trivedi, Shakeel Ahmad Ansari

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether a married daughter,
being a legal heir of deceased victims in a motor
accident claim, can be denied compensation
beyond statutory no-fault liability u/s 140 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the ground that she
is not a dependent, or whether she remains
entitled to full and just compensation u/s 166 of
Act as legal representative of deceased.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 140, 166 -
On
24.04.2009,
Aftab
Husain,
accompanied by his son, was travelling on
motorcycle towards the residence of
relative
when,
near
Bahad
Gram
Khushalganj,
Mohaan
Road,
a
truck
bearing being driven in rash and negligent
manner, collided with their motorcycle,
resulting in grievous injuries to both - They
were taken to Trauma Centre, where Aftab
Husain succumbed to his injuries on same
day, while his son expired during treatment
- Claimant-respondent, daughter of Aftab
Husain and sister of deceased, instituted
two separate claim petitions before Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal,
which
were
contested by State-appellants, who denied
accident
and
alleged
contributory
negligence by deceased - After appreciating
evidence,
Tribunal
held
that
accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving
of
offending
truck
and
awarded
compensation of ₹2,13,200/- for death of
Aftab Husain and ₹1,60,400/- for death of
his son, which awards were challenged by
State in instant appeals.
Held: Court holds that since claimant's husband
was employed abroad and she resided with her
8 All. The Chief Engineer Irrigation Deptt. Lko. & Anr. Vs. Ms. Tabassum
477
father and brother, her marital status does not
negate her dependency - Tribunal rightly
considered these facts and on a reasonable
assessment, awarded compensation of Rs.
2,13,200/- for her father's death and Rs.
1,60,400/- for her brother's death, which cannot
be termed excessive or unjust - It must be
borne in mind that human life holds immense
value and denying just compensation to legal
representative merely for lack of dependency,
by restricting it to no-fault liability amount as
prescribed u/s 140 of Act and adding some
amount
under
conventional
heads
would
amount to travesty of justice and a disregard for
loss of important human being caused by
another's
negligence
-
Tribunal's
findings
granting compensation to claimant can't be
faulted - As only contention raised pertained to
entitlement of married daughter and no other
ground urged, State's appeals being devoid of
merit, are dismissed - Awards in Claim Petitions
are affirmed - Any amount deposited shall be
remitted to Tribunal for release to claimant as
per award, and any shortfall shall be made good
with updated interest within sixty days. [Paras
28 to 31] (E-13)
Case Law Cited
Manjuri Bera v. The Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd. and others, (2007) 10 SCC 643; Chandra
Kala Sharma v. Mohd. Naushad, 2018 SCC
OnLine SC 2234; Deep Shikha v. National
Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1090; National Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Birender, (2020) 11 SCC 356; Seema Rani and
others v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others,
(2025) SCC OnLine SC 283; Jitendra Kumar
and another v. Sanjay Prasad and others, Civil
Appeal No. 710199 of 2025( Arising out of
SLP(C) No. 27779/2023); Sarla Verma
(Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation
and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121; National
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and
others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 - referred to

List of Acts
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

List of Keywords
Rash and negligent driving; Claim petitions;
Legal representative / Legal heir; Married
daughter; Dependency / Loss of dependency;
No-fault liability; Multiplier system; Quantum of
compensation / Just and fair compensation;
Compute
/
Calculation
of
compensation;
Entitlement to compensation; Deduction on
account of dependency; Exorbitant or unfair;
Record of Tribunal be returned forthwith; Not
entitled to be deprived of compensation.

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: First Appeal From
Order No. - 468 of 2011 Connected with First
Appeal From Order No. - 467 of 2011

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2011
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional
District Judge, Court No.13, Lucknow in Claim
Petitions bearing No.292 and 293 of 2009.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
C.S.C.

Advs. for the Respondent:
Rajesh Trivedi, Shakeel Ahmad Ansari
(Delivered by Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.)

1. This is a batch of two appeals filed
by the State under Section 173 of the of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as Act of 1988) assailing the
award dated 25.02.2011 passed by the
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court
No.13, Lucknow in two Claim Petitions
bearing No.292 and 293 of 2009 whereby
in a death case in Claim Petition No.292 of
2009, a sum of Rs.2,13,200/- alongwith 6%
interest per annum has been awarded
whereas in Claim Petition No.293 of 2009,
a sum of Rs.1,16,400/- alongwith 6%
interest per annum has been awarded in
favour of the claimant-respondents.

2. Facts indicate that on 24.04.2009,
Aftab Husain alongwith his son Tanveer
Husain was travelling on a motorcycle to
visit their relative. When they reached near
Bahad Gram Khushalganj, Mohaan Road,
478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Police Station Kakori, the offending Truck
bearing number URA 9406 which was
being driven rashly and negligently, hit the
motorcycle, as a result, both Aftab Husain
and his son Tanveer Husain sustained
grievous injuries. They were taken to the
Trauma
Centre
at
Medical
College,
Lucknow where during his treatment Aftab
Husain expired on 24.04.2009 while his
son Tanveer Husain expired during his
treatment on 01.05.2009. Both of them
were survived by the claimant-respondent
Smt. Tabassum (daughter of the Aftab
Husain and sister of Tanveer Husain).

3. It is in the aforesaid context that
Tabassum instituted two separate claim
petitions, one relating to the death of her
father which came to be registered as Claim
Petition No.292 of 2009 and the other
claim petition in respect of her brother
Tanveer Husain which was registered as
Claim Petition No.293 of 2009. Both the
claim petitions were contested by the State
who denied the accident and further alleged
that it was the deceased who was not
careful while driving the motorcycle and as
such on account of their own negligence
the accident occurred and not on account of
negligence of the Truck bearing number
URA 9406.

4. The Tribunal upon exchange of
pleadings framed four issues. Parties led
their evidence and thereafter the Tribunal
after analyzing the evidence recorded a
finding that the accident occurred on
account of rash and negligent driving of
the Truck bearing number URA 9406. It
also
went
on
to
compute
the
compensation and granted a sum of
Rs.2,13,200/- in relation to the death of
Aftab Husain and a sum of Rs.1,60,400/-
was awarded on account of death of
Tanveer Husain. It is the aforesaid two
awards which are under challenge before
this Court.

5. Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey,
learned Standing Counsel for the Stateappellants has vehemently urged that the
amount of compensation granted to the
respondents is not just and fair. It was
urged that the compensation in terms of
motor accident is primarily based on the
principal of loss of dependency. In case if
the dependency is not proved by the
claimants, they are not entitled to the
compensation
beyond
the
terms
of
Section 140 of the Act of 1988.

6. The submission is that since the
claimant was the married daughter of
Aftab Husain hence she cannot be said to
be the dependent on her father. Similarly,
for the very same reason the claimant
also cannot be treated to be a dependent
on
her
brother.
In
the
given
circumstances at best the claimant could
have been awarded compensation of a
sum of Rs.50,000/- for each of the two
deceased in terms of section 140 of the
Act of 1988.

7. It is also urged that the Tribunal has
erred in giving a larger compensation by
noticing the dependency which in the
instant case was not applicable, hence two
awards deserve to be modified and the
amount of compensation deserves to be
reduced only to the extent of limit as
prescribed under section 140 of the Act of
1988.

8. In support of his submission, he has
relied upon the decision of the Apex Court
in
Manjuri
Bera
v.
The
Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. and others,
(2007) 10 SCC 643. He has further urged
that the decision of the Apex Court in
8 All. The Chief Engineer Irrigation Deptt. Lko. & Anr. Vs. Ms. Tabassum
479
Manjuri Bera (supra) still holds the field
and it was followed by the Apex Court in
Chandra Kala Sharma v. Mohd. Naushad,
2018 SCC OnLine SC 2234.

9. It is urged that if a claimant did not
suffer any loss since she was not a
dependent on the deceased, then she can be
entitled to compensation but only upto the
limit fixed by the no fault liability section
and may be some amount can be awarded
under the conventional heads. He has also
relied upon a recent decision of the Apex
Court in Deep Shikha v. National
Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1090 wherein the Apex Court held that
once a daughter is married, the logical
presumption is that she has no rights on her
parent as she is supported by her husband
and his family. It is submitted that in Deep
Shikha (supra), the Apex Court considered
the dictum of the Apex Court in Manjuri
Bera (supra) and further noticed that since
the appellant no.1 (in Deep Shikha (supra) )
was the married daughter, hence the
compensation as awarded by the Tribunal
to her was reduced to the extent of
Rs.50,000/-whereas the
claim of the
appellant no.2 who was the mother of the
deceased
her
compensation
was
maintained.

10. Thus, it was urged that in the
instant case since the claimant was the
married daughter, accordingly she was not
a dependent of her father and brother,
hence the amount of compensation granted
is on the much higher side and the same
deserves to be reduced. Consequently, the
appeals deserve to be allowed.

11. Shri Rajesh Trivedi, learned
counsel for the respondents has urged that
the law relating to compensation arising out
of motor accidents have undergone vast
changes. The compensation as awarded is
then primarily based on the principal of
dependency but even the legal heirs are
entitled to the grant of compensation. He
further urged that in terms of Section 166
of the Act of 1988, the compensation can
be
claimed
by
the
legal
heirs/representatives. However, that does
not limit the right of such legal heirs/legal
representative to a particular sum. The right
to claim compensation vests with the legal
heirs/representative
and
the
question
depends upon the loss of dependency. The
quantum can vary but it does not in any
manner suggests that unless a person is
dependent either wholly or in part on the
deceased only then such compensation can
be claimed.

12. It was further urged that in the
instant case the claimant was dependent on
her father as well as brother by not only
being a legal heir but even for the reason
that her husband was in Dubai for the
purposes of his vocation and the father and
brother of the claimant used to provide her
with various facilities and amenities and
being the daughter she used to visit her
parent (as mother of the claimant had
already
died
earlier)
hence
these
circumstances in itself are sufficient to
prove
dependency
and
in
such
circumstances, the award made by the
Tribunal cannot be faulted, hence the
appeals deserve to be dismissed.

13. The Court had heard the learned
counsel for the parties and also perused the
material on record.

14. The issue before this Court for
consideration is whether a married daughter
can be excluded to claim compensation
beyond the prescribed limit as mentioned in
Section 140 of the Act of 1988.
480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. In order to answer the aforesaid
issue, it will first be relevant to notice the
decisions cited by the learned counsel for
the parties.

16. Learned counsel for the appellants
has heavily relied upon the decision of the
Apex Court in Manjuri Bera (supra).
However, this Court is of the view that the
said decision of Manjuri Bera has been
largely misunderstood; inasmuch as it does
not lay down any proposition to the effect
that a married daughter is not entitled to
compensation
beyond
the
prescribed
Section 140 of the Act of 1988.

17. In the case of Manjuri Bera, the
claim petition was filed by the married
daughter of Bata Krishna Mondal, an issue
was raised before the Apex Court as to
whether
the
married
daughter
could
maintain a claim in terms of Section 166 of
the Act of 1988. The Apex Court noticing
the provisions of Section 166 and 168
including noticing the definition of the
word 'legal representative' as mentioned in
Section 2(11) CPC held that the liability
under section 140 of the Act of 1988 does
not cease in absence of the dependency.
The right to file a claim application has to
be considered in the background of right to
entitlement. However, while assessing the
quantum, the multiplier system is applied
because of deprivation of dependency.

18. The Apex Court further held that the
multiplier is a measure and there are three
stages while assessing the question of
entitlement; first the liability of the person
who is liable and who is to indemnify the
liability; next is the quantification and in this
regard Section 166 is in the nature of
recovery
proceedings.
Accordingly,
the
liability under Section 140 of the Act of 1988
does not cease in absence of dependency. In
paragraph-15 of the said judgment, the Apex
Court held as under:-

"15. Judged in that background
where a legal representative who is not
dependant
files
an
application
for
compensation, the quantum cannot be less
than the liability referable to Section 140 of
the Act. Therefore, even if there is no loss of
dependency the claimant if he or she is a
legal representative will be entitled to
compensation, the quantum of which shall be
not less than the liability flowing from Section
140 of the Act. The appeal is allowed to the
aforesaid extent. There will be no order as to
costs. We record our appreciation for the
able assistance rendered by Shri Jayant
Bhushan, the learned amicus curiae."

19. From the above, it would reveal that
it was held that even if there is no loss of
dependency, the claimant, if is, the legal heir
or
representative,
will
be
entitled
to
compensation
and
the
quantum
of
compensation shall not be less than the
liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act
of 1988. The use of the words that the
quantum will not be less then the liability
flowing from Section 140 does not mean that
it is confined to the limits as provided in
Section 140 rather it has been held that the
compensation in such cases cannot be less
then the limit as mentioned in Section 140
and does not provide for any upper limit or
cap.

20. It will also be relevant to notice
that the decision of Manjuri Bera (supra)
came up for consideration before the Apex
Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Birender, (2020) 11 SCC
356.

21. In Birender the Apex Court has
succinctly noticed the quantum before it in
8 All. The Chief Engineer Irrigation Deptt. Lko. & Anr. Vs. Ms. Tabassum
481
para 10 whereas in paras 13 and 14, the
Apex Court has explained the intent and the
ratio laid down in the case of Manjuri Bera
(supra). For better appreciation, paras 10,
13 and 14 of Birender (supra) is being
reproduced hereinafter:-

"10. We have heard Mr Amit
Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
Insurance Company (appellant) and Ms
Abha R. Sharma, learned counsel for
Respondents 1 and 2. The principal issues
which arise for our consideration are as
follows:

10.1. (i) Whether the major sons
of the deceased who are married and
gainfully employed or earning, can claim
compensation under the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for short "the Act")?

10.2. (ii) Whether such legal
representatives
are
entitled
only
for
compensation
under
the
conventional
heads?

10.3. (iii) Whether the amount
receivable by the legal representatives of
the deceased under the 2006 Rules is
required to be deducted as a whole or only
portion thereof?

*****

13. In para 15 of Manjuri Bera
[Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 643 : (2008) 1 SCC
(Cri) 585] , while adverting to the
provisions of Section 140 of the Act, the
Court observed that even if there is no loss
of dependency, the claimant, if he was a
legal representative, will be entitled to
compensation. In the concurring judgment
of S.H. Kapadia, J., as his Lordship then
was, it is observed that there is distinction
between "right to apply for compensation"
and "entitlement to compensation". The
compensation constitutes part of the estate
of the deceased. As a result, the legal
representative of the deceased would
inherit the estate. Indeed, in that case, the
Court was dealing with the case of a
married daughter of the deceased and the
efficacy of Section 140 of the Act.
Nevertheless, the principle underlying the
exposition in this decision would clearly
come to the aid of Respondents 1 and 2
(claimants) even though they are major
sons of the deceased and also earning."

"14. It is thus settled by now that
the legal representatives of the deceased
have a right to apply for compensation.
Having said that, it must necessarily follow
that even the major married and earning
sons
of
the
deceased
being
legal
representatives have a right to apply for
compensation and it would be the bounden
duty of the Tribunal to consider the
application irrespective of the fact whether
the legal representative concerned was
fully dependent on the deceased and not to
limit the claim towards conventional heads
only. The evidence on record in the present
case would suggest that the claimants were
working as agricultural labourers on
contract basis and were earning meagre
income between Rs 1,00,000 and Rs
1,50,000 per annum. In that sense, they
were largely dependent on the earning of
their mother and in fact, were staying with
her, who met with an accident at the young
age of 48 years."

22. From the above it would reveal
that the Apex Court considering this very
same issue held that the legal heir/
representative of the deceased is entitled to
compensation even if there was no
dependency. In the said case, the major
482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sons of the deceased who were not
dependent
had
claimed
compensation
which was resisted by Insurance Company
and in the aforesaid context it was held that
the legal heirs were entitled to claim
compensation and their right could not be
curtailed upto the limit fixed in terms of
Section 140 of the Act of 1988.

23. Now in this backdrop, if the
decision of the Apex Court in Chandra
Kala Sharma (supra) is seen it would
indicate that it does not lay down any
proposition which is contrary to what has
been held by the Apex Court in Manjuri
Bera (supra) and as explained in Birender
(supra).

24 In so far as the decision of the
Apex Court in Deep Shika (supra) is
concerned, it would be noticed that in the
case of Deep Sikha (supra) the Apex Court
was not appraised of the earlier decision in
Birender (supra). This Court hastens to add
that there are two other later decisions of
the Apex Court in Seema Rani and others
v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others,
(2025) SCC OnLine SC 283 and Jitendra
Kumar and another Vs. Sanjay Prasad
and others, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 710199
of 2025( Arising out of SLP(C) No.
27779/2023) which follow the ratio as laid
down in Birender (supra).

25. In Jitendra (supra) the Apex Court
considered a similar issue regarding the
right to claim compensation by a married
daughter and relying upon the earlier
decision in Birender(supra) and Seem Rani
(supra), the Apex Court held as under:-

" 12.The High Court has placed
reliance on the judgment of this Court in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender;
(2020) 11 SCC 356 , to observe that the
claimant-appellant(s)
are
legal
representatives of the deceased and have a
right
to
apply
for
compensation.
Thereafter, in its discussion, the Court
observed that the claimant-appellant(s)
have not been shown to be dependents on
the deceased and consequently, a deduction
of 50% is to be made to determine the
compensation to be received by the
claimant-appellant(s).

13.In our considered opinion, the
view on this issue cannot be faulted. The
exposition of law in Birender (Supra) is
clear, wherein it was observed as under:
"14. It is thus settled by now that the legal
representatives of the deceased have a
right to apply for compensation. Having
said that, it must necessarily follow that
even the major married and earning sons of
the deceased being legal representatives
have a right to apply for compensation and
it would be the bounden duty of the
Tribunal to consider the application
irrespective of the fact whether the legal
representative
concerned
was
fully
dependent on the deceased and not to limit
the claim towards conventional heads
only."

14.Such exposition came to be
followed by this Court in Seema Rani and
Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and
Ors.; 2025 SCC Online SC 283, wherein it
was observed that the application for
compensation, even by married sons and
daughters, must be considered, irrespective
of whether they are fully dependant or not.
In the present case, it cannot be disputed
that the claimant-appellant(s) became
partner in the consultancy firm run by the
deceased. Moreover, it is not in dispute that
that the Flour Mill being run by the
deceased, is still being run by the claimantappellant(s).
In
such
a
factual
8 All. The Chief Engineer Irrigation Deptt. Lko. & Anr. Vs. Ms. Tabassum
483
circumstance, it cannot be said that the
claimant-appellant(s)
were
financially
dependent upon the deceased.

15. Therefore, in view of the
above, while the claimant-appellant(s)
were not dependent upon the deceased,
they are entitled to receive compensation
as his legal representatives, in accordance
with law. Thus, the deduction towards the
loss of personal and living expenses is to be
1⁄2 (50 % of the income of the deceased) in
accordance with law"

26. Having considered the decisions of
the Apex Court as mentioned and noticed
hereinabove, it would be clear that a legal
heir cannot be deprived of compensation
beyond the limits of no fault liability as
provided under Section 140 of the Act of
1988 on the ground that the said heir was
not a dependent of the deceased.

27. From the meaningful reading of
the aforesaid decisions in Birender (supra),
Seema Rani (supra) and Jitendra (supra), it
would indicate that a legal heir, who may
be a married daughter or a major son
(married or unmarried), being a legal heir
of
the
deceased
is
entitled
for
compensation. The compensation is to be
determined as provided by the Apex Court
in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and
others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
and another (2009) 6 SCC 121 which was
further approved by the Constitution Bench
of the Apex Court in National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and
others (2017) 16 SCC 680. It cannot be
stated as a bland proposition that the legal
heir if not dependent can only get the
amount as provided under section 140 of
the Act of 1988 as well as amount as
indicated in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra) under the conventional heads.
However, while calculating the quantum of
compensation, considering the evidence on
record, the dependency can be less or more
in the sense that in case if there is a married
daughter or a major son who may not be
dependent (technically) on the deceased but
the fact remains that because of the
relationship,
there
would
be
some
dependency
and
in
such
cases
the
deduction on account of dependency which
may vary from case to case basis depending
on the evidence but it cannot be said that
there would be no dependency and the
compensation would comprise of only the
amount under the no fault liability and
amount payable in terms of conventional
heads.

28. This Court in light of the facts of
the case holds that as the claimant has
stated that since her husband was employed
abroad hence she used to stay with her
parent, (with her father and brother) hence
it cannot be said that merely because the
claimant was married, she would have no
right or that she would not be a dependent.
Thus, the findings recorded by the Tribunal
cannot be faulted as the Tribunal has taken
note of the aforesaid submissions and
taking a conservative estimate had granted
a
compensation
of
Rs.2,13,200/-
on
account of death of her father and a sum of
Rs.1,60,400/- for the death of her brother,
which cannot be said to be exorbitant or
unfair.

29. It should always be kept in mind
that human life has much value, it would be
anomalous to state that a person may loose
a dear one or member of the family and
merely because the legal representative is
not dependent on the deceased hence, he or
she would be confined only to the no fault
liability
amount
as
prescribed
under
Section 140 of the Act of 1988 and adding
484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
some amount under the conventional heads,
this would be a travesty of justice and
mocking at a loss of an important human
being, due to negligence of another.

30. For the aforesaid reason, this Court
finds that the findings recorded by the
Tribunal granting compensation to the
claimant cannot be faulted. The main
ground as urged by the learned Standing
Counsel was in context with the entitlement
of
a
married
daughter
to
claim
compensation and no other ground was
pressed. The two appeals preferred by the
State
are
without
merit
and
are
consequently dismissed. Costs are made
easy. The award passed in Claim Petition
No.292 and 293 of 2009 are affirmed

31. Any amount deposited before this
Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal to
be released in favour of the claimant as per
the award and any short fall shall also be
made good with updated interest to the
claimant-respondents within 60 days from
today. The record of the Tribunal be
returned forthwith.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 484
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 143 of 2025

Pramod Kumar Rao @ Munna Singh
 ...Appellant
Versus
Legal Head Sahara India Commercial
Corporation Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Ajit Manit Tripathi, Sushil Kumar Mishra
Counsel for the Respondents:
Anuruddh Chaturvedi, Munna Tiwari

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to
entertain a suit for permanent injunction filed by
the plaintiff despite the existence of an
arbitration agreement between the parties.

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
Section 96, 151, Order 7 Rule 11, -
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 -
Sections 8, 8(1), 9 - First Appeal u/s 96 of
CPC - filed by the plaintiff-appellant - against
judgment and decree passed in Original Suit -
plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction
against dispossession from a flat allotted by the
defendants - defendant moved an application
under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC - Trial court
allowed the defendants' application, citing lack
of jurisdiction due to an arbitration clause -
plaintiff appealed under Section 96 CPC, arguing
that the arbitral tribunal could not grant the
relief sought - instant Appeal - court finds that,
it is admitted position that there is an arbitration
agreement between the between the plaintiff
and the defendant to decide all the dispute
arising
out
of
the
contract,
regarding
allotment of the disputed flat - in view of the
law laid down by the Apex Court in case of
Booz, Allen and Sundaram Finance Ltd. Court
held that Civil Court has got no jurisdiction in
this matter hence, by upholding the trial
court's decision, court affirming that the
dispute
falls
within
the
scope
of
the
arbitration agreement and that the arbitral
tribunal is competent to grant interim relief
under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 - Accordingly, instant
first appeal is dismissed. (Para - 12, 13, 14)
Appeal Dismissed. (E-11 )

CASE LAW CITED
Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home
Finance Ltd. & Ors. - (2011 vol. 5 SCC 532) and
Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. T. Thankam - 2015
vol. 14 SCC 444.

LIST OF ACTS
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and - Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996