1. The insurer, who is the 2nd respondent in M.V.O.P.No.776 of 2009 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Khammam (the Tribunal, for short), preferred the present appeal assailing the award of compensation at Rs.2,75,000/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum in favour of the sole claimant.

2. The deceased Athmakuri Ramaiah was statedly doing commission business and was also indulging in agricultural work. On 27-5-2006, the deceased and his friend P.W.2 were returning from Bhairavunipalli village to their village Yadavalli on a motorcycle bearing registration No. AP 20J 7171 driven by P.W.2 with the deceased as pillion-rider, at about 10.30 a.m., the lorry bearing registration No. AP 7W 2797 driven by the 2nd respondent herein dashed the motorcycle. The deceased sustained fracture of the shaft of the right femur, fracture of the right ankle, fracture of the right fibula and injuries on the right knee, right ankle and face apart from minor injuries all over the body. The deceased was immediately shifted to Mamatha General Hospital, Khammam. The deceased underwent treatment for a period of 9 days at the hospital.

3. The deceased was later shifted to Yasoda Super Speciality Hospital, Hyderabad. The deceased underwent a major surgery at Hyderabad. The deceased died on 27-10-2006. The sole claimant contended that the death of the deceased was on account of the injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident. The claimant, who is the son of the deceased, consequently claimed compensation at Rs.4,00,000/-for the death of the deceased.

4. The claimant examined four witnesses on his side. He has also exhibited Exs.A-1 to A-13. The owner cum driver of the lorry remained ex parte. The insurer, who contested the case, did not let in any oral evidence and exhibited only Ex.B-1, which is the copy of the insurance policy. On the basis of the evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation at Rs.2,75,000/-. Hence, the present appeal.5. The insurer did not question the cause of the accident. That the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the owner cum driver of the lorry thus is not in dispute. The insurer however questions not only the quantum of compensation but also contends that the death of the deceased was not due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the insurer, further questioned the award on the ground that the claimant was not a dependant upon the deceased and that he therefore could not be awarded compensation towards loss of dependency for the death of the deceased.

6. The deceased was 65 years old at the time of his death as can be seen from Ex.A-1 certified copy of the First Information Report, Ex.A-2 certified copy of the charge-sheet and Ex.A-4 certified copy of the death certificate. The wife of the deceased predeceased her husband. The only heir of the deceased is the claimant. However, the insurer contended that the claimant cannot be considered to be a dependant upon the deceased albeit he is the sole legal heir of the deceased.

7. The claimant described himself to be 38 years old and as an agriculturist. The claimant as P.W.1 did not whisper in his evidence that he was a dependant upon the deceased. In the cross-examination, there is a single reference to this aspect where the claimant as P.W.1 denied the suggestion that he was not a dependant upon the deceased. Where it is not contended by the claimant that he is a dependant upon the deceased, I am afraid that no amount of compensation can be awarded towards loss of dependency and loss of expectancy of life.

8. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer further contended that the very claim cannot be continued on account of the death of the deceased in view of the maxim “actiopersonalis moritur cum persona”. Where the deceased died about five months after the accident, the learned Standing Counsel for the insurer contende