1. This MACMA is directed at the instance of Reliance General Insurance Company Limited against the Award dated 09.06.2009 in M.V.O.P.No.582 of 2007 passed by the Chairman, MACT-cum-Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal).

2. The facts in brief are thus:

The two sons of Gundela Narasamma having been aggrieved by the death caused to their mother by the lorry bearing No.AP 29U 4479 filed MVOP No.582 of 2007 against owner and insurer of the offending lorry who are respondents 1 and 2 before the Tribunal and claimed Rs.3 lakhs as compensation. The first respondent remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company contested the matter. On appreciation of evidence on record the lower Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,81,000/- as compensation under differing heads against the respondents as follows:

Loss of dependency Rs. 2,64,000-00

Loss of estate Rs. 15,000-00

Funeral and other expenses Rs. 2,000-00

Total Rs. 2,81,000-00

Hence the appeal by the Insurance Company.

3. Heard arguments of Sri S.Raj Kumar, learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company and Sri T.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2/ claimants. None appeared for R3—owner of the vehicle.

4. The only point urged by the learned counsel for appellant is that the claimants are admittedly majors earning their own income and not depending on the deceased and as such, the Tribunal ought not to have granted compensation under the head loss of dependency. The Tribunal thus committed a grave error and so the appeal may be allowed and award may be set aside.

5. a) Per contra, the argument of learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2/claimants is dipronged. Firstly, he argued that the claimants being the sons of deceased are admittedly her legal heirs and legal representatives and hence they are entitled to lay claim for compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act (for short “MV Act”). He submitted that when the appellant raised similar question before the Tribunal, relying upon the decision reported in Narasimha and another vs. Annapurna and another 2007 (3) ALD 389 (AP) the Tribunal negatived the contention of the Insurance Company and awarded compensation. Therefore, it is futile for the appellant to raise again the same question in the appeal.

b) Secondly, he submitted, even if for argument sake it is conceded that compensation has to be awarded basing on the dependency factor alone, the Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence to show that the claimants are not the dependents on the income of their mother. It is true that the claimants are earning members. However, their evidence is that the deceased who was working as contract labourer in MCH was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and contributing the same for the maintenance of their family. As such, the claimants were depending on her income. Since no contra evidence was adduced by the Insurance Company, it cannot question the entitlement of the claimants. He thus prayed to dismiss the appeal.

6. In the light of above rival arguments, the point for determination in this appeal is:

“Whether the claimants being major sons of the deceased are entitled to compensation?”

7. POINT: The accident, involvement of lorry bearing No.AP 227 4479 and death of the deceased are not in dispute.

a) Admittedly, the two claimants are major sons of the deceased— Gundela Narasamma. In the claim petition itself the claimants 1 and 2 described themselves as private service holder and auto driver respectively and they are earning income independently. Probably basing on this fact the Insurance Company might contended before the Tribunal that the claimants are not entitled to compensation. In para-8(b) and (c) of its judgment the Tribunal has dealt with this aspect. It observed that though petitioners are major sons, they being the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to compensation under Section 166 of MV Act. In this regard, it relied upon the judg