IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that all legal representatives suffering from a victim's death in a motor vehicle accident are entitled to compensation, emphasizing a broad interpretation of dependency.

JUDGMENT :

Basavaraja, J.

Both appeals arise out of judgment and award dated 08th November, 2017 passed in MVC No.2477 of 2016 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as (the Tribunal”).

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

3. Brief relevant facts leading to these appeals are that the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of one Sangeeta in a road traffic accident. It is stated in the claim petition that on 28th September 2016, at about 8:30 am, the deceased, along with Ms. Sangeeta D/o Maruti Devare, were proceeding on a Honda Activa two-wheeler bearing Registration No. MH-08/AC-3478, ridden by Sangeeta W/o Vijaya Rajmane on the correct side of the road. Upon reaching Chiplun-Karad Road at Pimplai village within the jurisdiction of Chiplun Police Station, the driver of the truck bearing Registration No. MH-11/AL-0750 drove in a rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules or observing the cautionary signs put up by the concerned Department by the side of the road. All of a sudden, he lost control of his truck and collided with the two-wheeler on which the said Sangeeta was proceeding, causing the accident. Due to impact, Sangeeta W/o Vijaya Rajmane sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. It is contended that Petitioner No.1 incurred Rs. 50,000/- towards transportation of the dead body, funeral, and other expenses. It is further contended that as on the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 35 years, was hale and healthy and was working in the Postal Department at Alore, Chiplun Taluk, Rathnagiri District, drawing a salary of Rs. 40,000/- per month, by which she was maintaining her family and giving motherly love and guidance to her daughter. It is further contended that Petitioner No.2- daughter of the deceased, has lost the good governance of her mother at her tender age and Petitioner No.1 had to take the aid of a maid servant for carrying out household work and other daily chores which were done by the deceased prior to her death, for which Petitioner No.1 had to incur Rs.10,000/- per month to pay the servant. Furthermore, Petitioner No.1 has lost his companion in future life. It is further stated that the accident in question was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver and hence the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation with interest. On all these grounds, the claim petition was sought to be allowed.

4. In spite of the service of notice, Respondent No.1 remained absent and was placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2 appeared through his advocate and filed a statement of objections denying the entire contents of the claim petition. It is further contended that, as per police papers, the driver was driving the truck at a moderate speed and following traffic rules, but the deceased herself rode the two-wheeler in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the truck, thereby causing the accident. However, Chiplun Police wrongly registered the case against the driver of the truck with the help of the petitioners to secure compensation. The deceased was herself responsible for the accident in question, and consequently, the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation. It is further contended that Petitioner No.2 is working as a Pharmacist in the Primary Health Centre, Adhare, and was not dependent on the income of the deceased, thus he is not entitled to any compensation under the head loss of dependency. The driver did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive the truck, and the owner of the truck willfully entrusted it to a person who did not possess a valid driving license, thereby violating the conditions of the policy. Accordingly, the petition is liable to be dismissed against Responde