The burden of proof is on claimants to establish themselves as legal representatives/dependents of the deceased, and the court emphasized the necessity of producing acceptable evidence to support their claim.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

K.S.MUDAGAL, J. - Challenging the award in MVC No.702/2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT Udupi sitting at Kundapura, the Insurer has preferred 4728/2014 and the claimants have preferred MFA No.5415/2014.

2. Claimant No.1 is the mother of claimants No.2 and

3. They filed MVC No.702/2012 claiming compensation for the death of Shekar Shetty. They contended that Shekar shetty was a bachelor and brother of claimant No.1 and he was residing with them and they were dependent on his income. They further claimed that on 26/1/2012 at 9.00 a.m. when Shekar shetty was proceeding near Avarse Co-operative society on Avarse-goli Angadi, respondent No.1 riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA 20 Y 1558 in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life hit Shekar shetty and caused the accident. They claimed that Shekar Shetty was treated for the injuries suffered in the accident initially at Manipal Hospital and in Ajjarakadu Govt. Hospital for about three months as in-patient. Ultimately he died on 13/4/2012. They claimed that they have spent more than 2.5 lakhs for the medical expenses of Shekar shetty and Rs.50, 000.00 towards his funeral expenses, transportation etc. Respondent No.2 was the Insurer of the said vehicle during the relevant period.

3. Respondent No.1 did not contest the petition. Respondent No.2 contested the petition denying the occurrence of the accident in the manner alleged by the claimants, their relationship with the deceased and their dependency. Respondent No.2 denied the age, occupation, income of the deceased and its liability to pay the compensation.

4. In support of their case the claimants got examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to 17. Respondent No.2 did not lead any evidence. On its behalf by consent the Insurance policy was marked as Ex.R.1.

5. The trial Court on hearing the parties by the impugned award held that the accident occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of the first respondent and the consequential death of Shekar Shetty. The Tribunal held that the claimants were dependent on his income, considered the age of the deceased as 45 years, his income notionally at Rs.5, 000.00 per month, deducted one-fourth of his income for the personal expenses, applied 14 multiplier and awarded compensation of Rs.4, 20, 000.00 on the head of loss of dependency. Tribunal in all awarded compensation of Rs.4, 90, 000.00 on different heads payable by respondent No.2 with interest thereon at 6% p.a. as per the table below:

Submissions of Sri A.M.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the Insurer:

6. Claimant No.1 claims to be the married sister of the deceased, claimants Nos.2 and 3 are her daughters. Therefore, they are not legal representatives of the deceased. As per PWs.1 and 2 the deceased had four other brothers, they are necessary parties to the claim petition. More over when there are other brothers, it cannot be said that claimant No.1 was depending on the income of the deceased alone. The claimants did not produce any piece of evidence to show that the deceased was living with them and they were his relatives and dependents. The Tribunal did not consider that aspect at all. Even assuming that the relationship is proved, PW.1's evidence shows that she had inherited the properties from her husband. Therefore, herself and her major children cannot be called as dependents of the deceased. At the most, they may be entitled to compensation on the head of loss of estate. PW.1 herself admits that her brothers have paid the medical expenses of the deceased. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled to compensation on the head of medical expenses. Admittedly, no evidence was adduced to show that immediate/proximate cause of death was the accident. Under such circumstances, the award of the Tribunal suffers inherent error and liable to be set aside.

7. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the Insurer relied on the following judgm