M. B. VISHWANATH, J.

( 1 ) HEARD both counsel.

( 2 ) THE appellants are the claimants before the tribunal.

( 3 ) JORABAI, mother of the claimants, died on 16-12-1989 at 8. 30 a. m. at the bus-stand in chikkapadasalagi village on bijapur-jamakhandi road as a result of the accident caused by the driver who was driving the tempo bearing No. Myj 7967.

( 4 ) THE tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver was not established and that the appellants-claimants were not entitled to any compensation.

( 5 ) EX. P-1 is the copy of the first information report. It is clear from ex. P-l that there was rashness and negligence on the part of the driver. It is clearly stated that the driver was driving the tempo with great speed and negligence.

( 6 ) EX. P-3 is the copy of the mahazar prepared at the spot. It is clear from the recitals in ex. P-3 that the vehicle in question, after dashing against the claimant's mother, was facing west from the tar road. It is clearly stated in ex. P-3 that the tempo was standing at a distance of 30' from the spot of the accident. This recital is proof positive that there was negligence on the part of the driver. There is yet another recital in ex. P-3. The front glass of the tempo was smashed to pieces after the accident.

( 7 ) P. W. 3-husenbi (second appellant herein) has stated in here vidence that on the date of the accident, she and her mother were standing on the kachha road at chikkapadasalagi bus-stand and that the tempo came from bijapur side in a high speed and dashed against the bullock-cart and thereafter to her mother and then stopped by touching the hut. No doubt there is a little exaggeration in the evidence of p. w. 3. But there can be no doubt that there was rashness and negligence on the part of the driver. The evidence of p. w. 3, husenbi read conjointly with the recitals in ex. P-l and p-3 pointed out above points to one conclusion viz. , there was rashness and negligence on the part of the driver, and the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the tempo by the driver.

( 8 ) THE learned member of the tribunal has grossly erred in not noticing the above facts and dismissing the claim petition. The conclusion reached by the member of the tribunal is perverse.

( 9 ) NOW I take up the contention to what compensation are the appellants-claimants, who are the son and daughter of deceased jorabai, are entitled to.

( 10 ) IT is argued by the learned counsel for the insurance company that the second claimant is a married daughter and so she is not entitled to any compensation. The second claimant is a 22 years old lady. It is argued that the second claimant, since she is married, is not a dependent and so she is not entitled to any compensation. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another, at page 569 that clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 110-a of the motor vehicles ACT provide that an application for compensation arising out of an accident may be made where death has resulted from the accident by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased.

( 11 ) IN the same authority, at page 571, the Supreme Court has been pleased to observe 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 under the Motor Vehicles Act.

( 12 ) IN view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the reis no force in the argument that the second appellant-claimant, who is 22 years old married daughter of the deceased, is not entitled to compensation.

( 13 ) IT is next contended that the first appellant-claimant is amajor son and he was not a dependent of deceased mother. It is in the evidence

Click Here to Read the rest of this document