IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation in motor accident claims, considering the dependency of the claimants on the deceased and the income of the deceased.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral) - This appeal has been filed challenging the Award dated 27.03.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the `Impugned Award') passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Pilot Court), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') in MACT No. 15441/15, titled Krishan Pal Mourya & Ors. v. Ravinder Kumar & Ors..

2. It was the case of the claimants before the learned Tribunal that their father, Sh.Balak Ram (hereinafter referred to as the `Deceased') along with one Nafees was going towards IT Park from Jamuna Khadar on foot. As they reached IT Park Red Light ISBT to Shastri Park Chowk, GT Road, Delhi, a mini bus bearing registration no.DL-1VA-0384 (hererinafter referred to as the `Offending Vehicle'), which was being driven by respondent no.1 at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from Kashmiri Gate side and hit the deceased. Resultantly, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained fatal injuries. Though he was rushed to Dr. Jag Parvesh Chand Hospital, Shastri Park by the CAT Ambulance, he was declared as brought dead.

3. The learned Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence led before it, came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place due to the Offending Vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner. However, on the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the appellants, the learned Tribunal held that as all the claimants were major, they could not be considered as dependent on the deceased and, therefore, awarded only a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 643.

4. The limited challenge of the appellants to the Impugned Award is on the quantum of compensation awarded in their favour.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant no.4, the daughter of the deceased was aged only 18 years and was unmarried. She was clearly dependent on the income of the father, that is, the deceased. He submits that the appellant no. 1 appeared before the learned Tribunal as PW-1, and deposed that the appellants were dependent on the income of the deceased. He submits that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the appellant no. 4 would be dependent on the deceased and his income, by deducting one half of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses, should have been taken into consideration for awarding the compensation to the appellants.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that there was no document filed by the appellants to prove the income of the deceased.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

8. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender, (2020) 11 SCC 356, the Supreme Court has held as under:

"14. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the legal representative concerned was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. The evidence on record in the present case would suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre income between Rs.1,00,000 and Rs.1,50,000 per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependent on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years."

9. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Raj Rani, 2022 SCC OnLine P&H 3673, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, while dealing with a similar issue, held as under