IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the broader interpretation of the term 'dependent' under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the principles of just and fair compensation, emphasizing the legislative intent of providing relief to the victims of road accidents or their families.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed by the dependent of the deceased seeking enhancement of compensation, being aggrieved by judgment & award dated 23.12.2014 passed in MVC No.4/2008 by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Hubballi (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that one Sri. Shivappa Sangalad, met with an accident on 20.11.2007. His son Sri. Basavaraj Shivappa Sangalad filed a claim petition along with his two sisters seeking compensation. During the pendency of the said claim petition, the claimant No.1/Basavaraj Shivappa Sangalad, son of the deceased has died. Then Smt. Parvati, the wife of claimant No.1 was brought on record and she continued the proceedings. It is averred that the deceased-Shivappa Sangalad was standing near Manu Hotel on the left side of P.B. Road on 20.11.2007, at that time, TVS Suzuki Max-100 Deluxe motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-25-S-6587 ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the deceased. Resultantly, deceased fell down and sustained fatal injuries and later he succumbed to the injuries on 05.12.2007. It is averred that the deceased was an Accountant in Merchants Shop in APMC, Hubballi. It is further contended that due to the untimely death, the claimant lost love, affection and a source of income. It is also averred that the rider of the motorcycle was negligent and caused the accident. Hence, filed claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation.

3. The respondents entered appearance before the Tribunal, opposed the claim petition. The Tribunal considering the evidence available on record awarded total compensation of Rs.22,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. to the claimant No.1(a) and also awarded Rs.5,000/- each to the claimant Nos. 2 and 3. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, wife of the claimant No.1 filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

4. Sri. Y. Lakshmikant Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed grave error in awarding meager compensation of Rs.22,000/- without considering that the appellant was depending on the earnings of the deceased. He submits that the original claim petition was filed by the son and two daughters of the deceased and during the pendency of the claim petition before the Tribunal, his son has died and hence, his legal heir was brought on record.

5. It is further submitted that the deceased-Shivappa Sangalad, his late son and the present appellant were residing together under one roof and son of the deceased and daughter in law of the deceased were fully dependant on the income of the deceased. Hence, he seeks to consider the appellant as a dependant of the deceased for the purpose of awarding compensation and seeks to allow the appeal by awarding appropriate compensation to the appellant.

6. Per contra, Smt.Preethi Shashank, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 opposes the appeal by supporting judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the appellant can be the dependant of son of the deceased and she cannot be the dependant of her father in law. Hence, she is not entitled to any compensation under the head of loss of dependency. Thus, she seeks to dismiss the appeal.

7. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent No.5 and meticulously perused the material available on record, including the Tribunal records.

8. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether Tribunal has justified in not considering the appellant as a dependant of the deceased and awarded just compensation?

9. The answer to the above point is in the “negative” for the following reasons:

10. The parties to the proceeding do not dispute that one Sri.Shivappa Sangalad met with an accident on 20.11.2007, sustained fatal injuries in the said accident and after taking treatment for some time, he succumbed to the injuries. It is also not in