Chattisgarh High Court
Shri Ram General Insurance Com Ltd vs Lachcha Muchaki on 29 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:19942
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1141 of 2016
1 - Shri Ram General Insurance Com Ltd. Insu Office 1003-E-8,
Industrial Area Sitapura - Jaipur, Rajaisthan Pin 302022, India,
(Insurer of Truck CG. 04 J.A. 2569).
... Appellant
versus
1 - Lachcha Muchaki S/o Late Jogi Muchaki, Aged About 35
Years R/o- Bada Badma, Patelpara, Thana- Kuakonda, Tahsil-
Kuakonda, District- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Nand Kishor Muchaki, S/o Jogi Muchaki, Aged About 30
Years Present Address 09 V Battalion, C.G. Special Force, Karlei,
District- Dantawara, Chhattisgarh, Parmanent Address Bada
Badma, Patelpara, Thana- Kuakonda, Tahsil- Kuakonda,
District- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh,......Claimants.
3 - Nintu Kumar Vishwas, S/o Ranjeet Vishwas, Aged About 35
Years R/o- Bangali Camp Ward No. 03, Kirandul, Tahsil-
Kuakonda, District- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh,......Driver Of
Truck C.G. 04 J.A 2569.
4 - Sushain Roy, S/o Chintaharan, Aged About 38 Years R/o-
Bangal Camp, Ward No 03, Kirandul, Tahsil- Kuakonda,
District- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh,......Owner Of Truck C.G. 04
J.A. 2569.
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Raghvendra Verma, Adv. &
Mr. Deepak Gupta, Adv.
Digitally
signed by
HEERA HEERA
LAL SAHU
LAL Date:
SAHU 2026.04.30
16:13:46
+0530
2
For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Mr. Vikas Patel, Adv. On behalf
of Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Adv.
For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.
Order on Board
(29.04.2026)
1 This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 against the award dated 25.04.2016
passed by Second Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, South Bastar Dantewara (C.G.), in Claim Case
No. 409/2014 (Lacche Muchaki & Anr. vs. Nintu Kumar
vishwas & Ors.) (herein after referred to as ‘award in
question’) whereby a compensation of Rs.3,10,500/- with
interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded in favour of
the claimants for their irreparable loss.
2 Brief facts of the case were that on the night of 1.01.2012,
Baman (deceased) was lying in the verandah of the Aftab
Tyre Works shop, waiting for a bus to Kirandul. At that
time, the truck bearing registration No. CG-04-JA-2569
(hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle) owned by
Susen Rai (Respondent No. 4) and insured by Shriram
General Insurance Company Limited (the Appellant), was
being driven by its driver, Nintu Kumar Biswas
(Respondent No. 3), in a rash and negligent manner.
Consequently, the rear wheel of the offending vehicle ran
over Baman’s head, resulting in his death on the spot.
3 Baman was an unmarried young man aged 25 years who
worked as a labourer. His parents had already died.
Subsequently, his elder brothers, Lachha Muchaki
(Respondent No. 1) and Nand Kishore Muchaki
(Respondent No. 2) filed a claim for compensation under
3
Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Upon hearing both
parties, the Tribunal passed the impugned award, wherein
the deceased Baman’s age was determined to be 25 years,
and his monthly income was assessed at ₹3,000/-. Given
his status as an unmarried individual, a deduction of 50%
was applied towards his personal expenses; thereafter, by
applying a multiplier of 17, a sum of ₹3,06,000/- was
calculated as compensation. Additionally, ₹2,000 was
awarded for funeral expenses and ₹2,000 under the head of
loss of estate, resulting in a total award of ₹3,10,500/-
passed in favour of the claimants (Respondents No. 1 and
2) and against the driver, registered owner, and insurer of
the offending vehicle, an award which has been challenged
in the present appeal.
4 The learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company
argues that the claimants, Lachha Muchaki (Respondent
No. 1) and Nand Kishore Muchaki (Respondent No. 2) are
the elder brothers of the deceased, Baman. The deceased
Baman himself was unmarried, whereas both claimants are
not only married but were also not dependent upon the
deceased. Lachha Muchaki is engaged in agricultural work,
while Nand Kishore Muchaki holds the post of Assistant
Constable in the Chhattisgarh Special Armed Force. Since
the claimants do not fall within the category of dependents,
the award passed by the Tribunal in their favour is
erroneous in the eyes of the law and excessive. Therefore,
the passed award ought to be set aside by allowing the
present appeal.
5 No one appeared on behalf of the respondents No. 1 & 2
during final hearing of this case.
6 Learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4, who are,
respectively, the driver and the registered owner of the
4
offending vehicle have denied their liability, asserting that
the vehicle was insured.
7 Heard learned counsel appearing for parties, and the record
was meticulously perused.
8 In this case, claimants Lacchha Muchaki and Masaram
Sori have been examined on behalf of the claimants. As a
claimant and the elder brother of the deceased, Lacchha
Muchaki has admitted that the deceased was younger than
him; while he himself engages in agricultural work, Nand
Kishore Muchaki serves as an Assistant Constable in the
Chhattisgarh Special Armed Force. The deceased (Baman)
used to work for a contractor and would dine with him. The
evidence clearly establishes that the deceased was
unmarried, whereas the claimants are married and possess
independent sources of income; consequently, it cannot be
asserted that the deceased was entirely dependent upon
the claimants.
9 The main question for consideration in this case is whether
the claimants, Lachha Muchaki and Nand Kishore Muchaki
as elder brothers, are entitled to get compensation as a
result of the accidental death of their younger brother,
Baman.
10 Under Section 166 (1) of the Act of 1988, the status of
eligible persons applying for compensation has been
declared, which also includes all or any of the legal
representatives of the deceased, which reads as follows:-
“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
5
(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”
11 The term “legal representative” has not been defined in the
Act of 1988 and the same is defined in sub-Section (11) of
Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which reads
follows:
“11. “legal representative” means 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;”
12 In the light of above provision, if I look at the legal status of
term “legal representative” in the context of motor accident
claim cases, then paragraphs-12 and 15 of the judgment
rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Manjuri Bera (Smt.) v. Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd. and Another, reported in (2007) 10 SCC 643 are
relevant, which are reproduced below for easy reference:-
“12. As observed by this Court in Custodian of Branches
of BANCO National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique
[1989] Supp (2) SCC 275 the definition contained in
Section 2(11) CPC is inclusive in character and its scope
is wide, it is not confined to legal heirs only. Instead it
stipulates that a person who may or may not be legal
heir competent to inherit the property of the deceased
can represent the estate of the deceased person. It
includes heirs as well as persons who represent the
estate even without title either as executors or
administrators in possession of the estate of the
deceased. All such persons would be covered by the
expression ‘legal representative’. As observed in Gujarat
SRTC V. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai (1987) 3 SCC 234 a
6legal representative is one who suffers on account of
death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and
need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and
child. 15. Judged in that background where a legal
representative who is not dependent 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.”
13 Similarly, paragraph-13 of the judgment rendered by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gujarat State
Road Transport Corporation, Ahmadabad v.
Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Anr., reported in (1987) 3
SCC 234 reads as follows:-
“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 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 110B of the Act
7amongst 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
Taljabhai, AIR 1977 Guj 195 and hold that the brother
of a person who dies in a motor vehicle accident is
entitled to maintain a petition under Section 110-A of
the Act if he is a legal representative of the deceased.”
14 In light of the aforementioned legal provisions and judicial
precedents, it is evident in the case under consideration
that Baman’s parents had already passed away. Baman
was unmarried and had no children. Thus, the two
claimants, his elder brothers are his legal heirs and fall
within the category of legal successors. Under these
circumstances, the award passed by the Tribunal in favour
of the claimants, recognising them as legal heirs, cannot be
deemed illegal or erroneous.
15 As far as the question of the compensation amount is
concerned, the position in this regard is clear that the
compensation amount calculated by the Tribunal is not
found to be excessive. Therefore, the second contention of
the appellant that the Tribunal awarded an excessive
amount in favour of the claimants is also not found to be
acceptable.
8
16 On the basis of the aforesaid discussions, the conclusion
reached by the Tribunal in this matter is neither
contradictory nor inconsistent with the facts and evidence
available on record; therefore, the arguments advanced by
the Appellant in the appeal are not tenable, and no grounds
are found to warrant interference with the Tribunal’s
award.
17 Accordingly, on the aforesaid grounds, since the arguments
raised in the appeal are not admissible, the appeal is
hereby dismissed.
18 The records of the Tribunal, along with a copy of this order
be sent forthwith to the concerned tribunal for information
and necessary action, if any.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
H. L. Sahu
