Legal representatives, including major children, are entitled to claim compensation regardless of dependency; the Tribunal erred in limiting the compensation amount based on dependency status.

Judgment :

Parth Prateem Sahu, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 16.01.2019 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in M.A.C.C. No. 476/2015.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 09.09.2014 at about 06:15 P.M., the Respondent No. 1 was driving his motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 04 KA 6026 in a rash and negligent manner and the said offending vehicle dashed Smt. Geeta Bai Sahu near Baruwadih and caused accident. Due to the said accident, Smt. Geeta Bai Sahu suffered severe injuries and she was taken to hospital at Pallari for treatment, where she succumbed to her injuries. Subsequent to the said accident, an FIR was registered against the Respondent No. 1 bearing Crime No. 322/2014, P.S. Palari, District - Raipur for the offence punishable under Sections 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. The claimants/appellants in the claim application filed before the learned Claims Tribunal have pleaded that the deceased Smt. Geeta Bai Sahu was aged about 58 years on the date of accident. She was receiving family pension of Rs. 8373/- after death of her late husband. After death of the deceased Smt. Geeta Bai Sahu, appellants/claimants filed application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 8,33,000/-.

4. The Non-Applicants No. 1 & 2 submitted reply opposing the pleadings in the claim application and submitted that, the claimants have not impleaded the other dependents of the deceased as party in the claim application. They also pleaded that the Non-Applicant No. 1 on the date of accident had not gone to Village Bharuwadih. The offending vehicle was not owned by the Non-Applicant No. 1 and even, the said vehicle was not being driven by the Non-Applicant No. 1. They further pleaded that claimants are not dependent on the deceased in any manner.

5. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the facts and evidence brought on record held that the death of deceased was a result of motor accidental injuries suffered by her, fastened liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the Non-applicants jointly and severally, awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the claimants as compensation.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding only a sum of Rs. 50,000/- against death of mother of the claimants i.e. Smt. Geeta Bai Sahu. He contended that at the time of accident, mother of the claimants was drawing pension of Rs. 8,840/- per month on which, the claimants were also dependent. Learned Claims Tribunal recording a finding that the claimants were not dependent upon the income of the deceased has awarded only Rs. 50,000/- as total compensation which is erroneous. He submits that the claimants being children of the deceased are having right to apply for compensation as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Birender & Ors. reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356 .

7. On the other hand, learned counsels for the Respondents opposes the submission of counsel for the appellants/claimants and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal considering the facts and evidence available on record have recorded a finding that the Claimant/Appellant No. 1 being the major earning son and the