The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of claimants to compensation for loss of dependency and consortium under the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing the need for just compensation.

JUDGMENT

Anuja Prabhudessai, J. - These appeals are filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'M.V. Act') challenging the judgment and awards both dated 01.08.2018 in MACP Nos. 250/2012 and 249/2012.

2. The respondents are the original claimants in the application under Section 166 of the M. V. Act, and shall be hereinafter referred to as the claimants.

3. The claimant No.1 is the husband of Mangala and father of Nilesh whereas the Claimant Nos. 2 and 3 are the daughter of Mangala and sisters of Nilesh. It was the case of the claimants that a Tata vehicle bearing registration No. MH-27/C-230 collided against an autorikshaw, bearing registration No. MH-27/C-6242 wherein the deceased Mangala and her son Nilesh were traveling. Said Mangala and Nilesh died as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident.

The claimants stated that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The claimants further stated that Mangala was earning Rs. 36,000/- per annum, whereas Nilesh was working as Clerk at D.Ed. College and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. Claimants filed an applications under Section 166 of the M. V. Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 7,85,000/- each in view of the death of the Mangala and Nilesh in the motor vehicular accident.

4. The appellant -Insurance Company claimed that the claim is exorbitant and denied its liability to pay the compensation. The appellant also raised a plea of non-joinder of necessary party -viz, driver, owner and insurer of the autorickshaw involved in the accident.

5. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, recorded a finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal considered the age of the deceased Mangala as 52 years and computed compensation on the basis of notional income at Rs. 4500/- per month. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd amount towards her personal expenses and added 10% towards future prospects and applying multiplier 11, assessed loss of dependancy at Rs. 4,35,600/-. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and thus awarded total compensation of Rs. 4,95,000/- in view of the death of Mangala.

6. The Tribunal held that deceased Nilesh was 28 years of age and upon considering the salary certificate at Exh. 43, considered his income at Rs. 6620/- per month. The deceased Nilesh was a bachelor, hence the Tribunal deducted 50% towards his personal expenses, Upon adding 50% towards future prospectus, and applying multiplier of 17, the Tribunal assessed total loss of dependency at Rs. 13,50,480/. The Tribunal awarded compensation Rs. 15,000/- towards love and affection and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and thus, awarded total compensation of Rs. 13,95,000/- in view of the death of the Nilesh. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Awards, the appellant -Insurance Company has filed these appeals under Section 173 of the M. V. Act.

7. Shri A. V. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimants could not have been dependent on the income of Mangala as well as Nilesh. He submits that at the most the claimants would be entitled for compensation towards loss of dependency only in one claim petition.

8. It is to be noted that the factum of accident and that the death of Mangala and Nilesh was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle is not in dispute. The appellant -Insurance Company has assailed the judgment on the sole ground that the claimants cannot claim loss of dependency in more than one claim petition. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender and others, (2020) AIR SC 434, wherein it has been held that the major married son who is also earning and not fully dependant on the deceased, would be still covered by the expressi