Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant, who was the Claimant in Claim Petition bearing No. 261/2016 titled Raghav Singh v. Dinesh Kumar & Anr. before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal'), challenging the Award dated 31.03.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the `Impugned Award') passed by the learned Tribunal.

2. The wife of the appellant/claimant, that is, Smt. Prem Lata, aged 27 years (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') was employed as a Constable with the Uttar Pradesh Police. She died as a result of the injuries suffered by her in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27.07.2013 on the road leading to Shastri Nagar in front of PS Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, while she was riding pillion on the motorcycle being driven by her colleague, Constable Prashant Kumar, and while being on her way to the Traffic Police Office, Police Line, from PS Kavi Nagar. The accident was with a truck bearing No. UP- 14AH9578 (hereinafter referred to as the `Offending Vehicle') that came at a high speed from Hapur Chungi side and hit the motorcycle from behind, leading to the fall of the deceased and crushing the deceased under its tyre. At the time of the accident/death, the deceased was in the 8th month of pregnancy.

3. The learned Tribunal, by its Impugned Award, has held that the deceased died due to the negligent driving of the offending vehicle. For the award of compensation, the learned Tribunal determined the net salary of the deceased as Rs.17,052/- per month. The learned Tribunal, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Keith Rowe v. Prashant Sagar & Ors., Neutral Citation no. 2010:DHC:234, held that as the appellant herein is employed as a Constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police and is admittedly drawing a salary in the sum of Rs.19,500/- per month, therefore, he was not financially dependent on the deceased and cannot seek loss of dependency, however, would be entitled to loss of estate, which was calculated as 1/3rd of the income of the deceased.

4. The first challenge of the appellant herein flows from the above finding of the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the loss of the estate should have been considered by deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased for her personal expenses, rather than taking it at 1/3rd of the income of the deceased.

5. I find no merit in the said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. In Keith Rowe (Supra), this Court, placing reliance on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of A. Manavalagan v. A. Krishnamurthi and Ors., 2005(1) ACC 304: 2005 ACJ 1992, held as under:

"9. The appellant was not financially dependent upon the deceased and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to the compensation for loss of dependency. However, the appellant is entitled to the loss of estate. The law in this regard is well settled by the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of A. Manavalagan Vs. A. Krishnamurthy and Ors., 2005(1) ACC 304/2005 ACJ 1992, wherein it was held as under:

"8. On the contentions urged, the following questions arise for consideration:

(i) What are the principles for determining compensation, where the claimant is not a dependant?"

"12. In GOBALD MOTOR SERVICE v. R.M.K. VELUSWAMI, MANU/SC/0016/1961: [1962]1SCR929 referring to Sections 1 and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act (Sections 1A and 2 after 1951 amendment to the said Act), the Supreme Court pointed out the difference between damages recoverable under the said two Sections. It was held that while under Section 1 (new Section 1A) damages are recoverable for the benefit of the persons mentioned therein, under Section 2, compensation goes to the benefit of the estate; whereas under Section 1, damages are payable in respect of loss sustained by the persons mentioned therein, under Section 2 damages can be claimed