The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is contingent upon proving dependency on the deceased, and evidence of dependency is crucial for granting compensation.

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the said Act) by the claimants who are aggrieved by the judgment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur dated 01/03/2003 dismissing the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the said Act. The facts in brief are that one Haroon, son of Gulam Ali was going along with one Raju Goswami as a pillion rider on a scooter. The said vehicle was dashed by a bus belonging to the respondent. Said Haroon lost his life in the accident. The mother and brother of said Haroon filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the said Act. The claim petition was opposed by the respondent by filing its written statement. During pendency of the proceedings, the present appellants filed an application for being impleaded as claimant Nos. 2 and 3 in the proceedings. Said application was allowed. Thereafter by judgment dated 01/03/2003, the Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that the appellants could not be treated to be dependent on deceased Haroon. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by the subsequently impleaded claimants.

2. Shri A. Hussain, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that initially the claim petition was filed by the mother and brother of Haroon. The Claims Tribunal having allowed the application for impleadment, it should have decided the claim petition by treating the appellants as dependents of said Haroon. He submitted that there was sufficient evidence on record to indicate the fact that the appellants who were related to the deceased were dependent on him. Reference was made to the deposition of the Patwari at Exhibit-34 that Haroon was getting income from agricultural lands. By relying upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and anr., (1987) 3 SCC 234 and Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel and anr. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr., 2014(4) Mh.L.J. 15, it was submitted that the Claims Tribunal erred in holding that the appellants were not dependent on the deceased while refusing to grant compensation. It was therefore submitted that the impugned judgment was liable to be set aside and fair compensation deserves to be granted to the appellants.

3. Shri S.R. Charpe, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment. According to him, the Claims Tribunal had rightly found that the appellants were not dependent on Haroon. It was urged that the aspect regarding entitlement to make a claim for compensation or to continue the proceedings was distinct from the aspect of dependency for claiming compensation. Though a party may be entitled to claim compensation, if it is found that such party was not dependent upon the deceased, then there would be no occasion to grant compensation. It was submitted that in fact the impleadment of the appellants was opposed by the original claimants by filing reply on record and disputing their dependency. The original claimant No.2 had not chosen to file any appeal challenging the impugned judgment and the appeal was filed only by the subsequently impleaded parties who were not dependent on the deceased. It was therefore submitted that there was no case made out to grant compensation. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgments of Honourable Supreme Court in Manjuri Bera vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and anr. (2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 643 and Anju Mukhi and anr. v. Satish K. Bhatia and ors. (2010) 15 Supreme Court Cases 630.

4. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the records and I have gone through the impugned judgment. The following points arise for determination :

(1) Whether the appellants have proved that they were dependent on the deceased for being entitled to receive compensation ?

(2) If yes, what would be the amount of compensation to which they would be entitled?

5. The c