The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of dependency for awarding compensation in motor vehicle accident cases.

JUDGMENT :

B.M. Shyam Prasad, J.

This appeal being listed for admission is taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The Insurance Company is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award by the dated 21.02.2015 in MVC.No.185/2012 by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT at Shorapur sitting at Shahapur Tribunal's (for short, 'the Tribunal'). The Insurance Company is aggrieved insofar the Tribunal's finding as regards the negligence of the driver of the Mahindra Jeep bearing Reg.No.AP-05-C-6471 and the grant of compensation granted to the claimant, who is the younger brother of deceased-Yallappa. The Tribunal vide the impugned judgment and award dated 21.02.2015 has allowed the claim petition filed by the younger brother of the deceased-Yallappa awarding a sum of Rs.08.09,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

2. The deceased - Yallappa and his friend Rayappa were proceeding on the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.24-J-3615 from Shahapur to Rabbanalli village, on 21.11.2011, when they met with an involving the Mahindra Jeep bearing Reg.No.AP-05-C-6471 (for short, 'the offending vehicle') coming from the opposite side. Both Yallappa and Rayappa died on the spot.

3. The younger brother of the deceased- Yallappa has filed a claim petition for compensation arraying the owner of the offending vehicle and its insurer as respondents alleging that the accident was because of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. He has asserted that deceased- Yallappa was an earning member of his family comprising of himself and the deceased - Yallappa, and he was dependent on the income of the deceased- Yallappa. He has also asserted that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as agriculturist and agriculture labour. The owner and Insurance Company have filed their objections contending that the accident was because of the rash and negligent riding of the rider of motorcycle, Sri. Rayappa. The Claimant being the younger brother of the deceased-Yallappa, cannot be his dependent.

4. This claim petition by the younger brother of the deceased Yallappa was clubbed with the claim petition in MVC No. 188/2012 filed by the parents of the deceased-Rayappa. The claimant examined himself as PW.1 in support of claim petition. Insofar as accident, the claimant (and the claimants in other claim petition in MVC No. 188/2012) relied upon the FIR registered within the jurisdictional police on 21.11.2011, Charge Sheet and the Crime Details Form that included a sketch of the place of accident. The owner of the offending vehicle examined himself as RW.1.

5. Though the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company contend that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the liability on the driver of the offending vehicle, insofar as the present appeal the question, which of the two drivers were negligent would not be significant. The claim petition is by the younger brother of the deceased who was only a pillion rider, and therefore, a third party. The accident would be because of composite negligence, and either of the joint tortfeasors could be sued by the claimants. As such, the appeal on this point cannot be entertained.

6. Insofar as the claim by the younger brother of the deceased Yallappa, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company relies upon the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Shivamma and others, (2008) ILR(Kar) 1561. This decision is based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt.Manjuri Bera vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, (2007) AIRSCW 1962 and the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.A Manavalagan vs. A Krishnamurthy, (2004) ILR(Kar) 3268. It is asserted that if the claimant's dependency on the claimant is not established, the claiman