Legal heirs who are not dependants of a deceased person can claim compensation based on loss to the estate rather than loss of dependency, with the compensation calculated based on the deceased's notional income and savings.

JUDGMENT

1. Aggrieved by the judgment and award dtd. 30/8/2017 passed in MVC No.397/2015 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kollegal (for short 'the Tribunal'), the petitioners therein have preferred this appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein as per their status before the Tribunal.

3. The deceased - Rangegowda was waiting for a bus near Mahalakshmi Flower stall, Yelandur on 7/10/2015 at about 6.00 p.m. Unfortunately, at that time, a lorry bearing registration No.KA-01-D-4534 driven in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed against him, because of which, he expired. The said lorry was duly insured with respondent No.2 Insurance Company.

4. The petitioners claiming to be nieces of the deceased preferred MVC No.397/2015. The Tribunal accepted the contention that the deceased was a Bachelor and the petitioners were his only legal representatives. However, based on the evidence, it came to the conclusion that the petitioners failed to establish that they were dependants of the deceased and also failed to show that they were brought up by the deceased or residing with him. For that reason, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards 'loss of dependency', but has granted a sum of Rs.15, 000.00 towards 'loss of love and affection' and Rs.25, 000.00 towards 'transportation of dead body' and 'funeral expenses', which the Tribunal concluded that it was done by the petitioners. Thus, in all, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.40, 000.00 along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit. Not satisfied by the same, the present appeal has been filed.

5. In the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that the petitioners are giving up the claim on the count of 'loss of dependency'. However, it is contended that the petitioners and the deceased are Hindus and the petitioners are entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased and are entitled for higher compensation than what is awarded by the Tribunal.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioners are not close relatives of the deceased and are married and residing separately and thus, they are not entitled to higher compensation and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

7. The fact that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry and the deceased died because of it and the lorry at that particular point of time was duly insured with respondent No.2 - Insurance Company is not disputed.

8. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is under the given facts and circumstances of the case, i.e., when the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased, but are not his family members and not dependant on him, what is the compensation that they are entitled to.

9. Sec. 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under:

"166. Application for compensation:-(1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 165 may be made-

(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or

(b) by the owner of the property; or

(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or

(d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:

Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. Provided further that where a person accepts compensation under Sec. 164 in accordance with the procedure provided under Sec. 149, his claims petition before the Claims Tribunal shall lapse."

Thus, w