JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

1. These appeals have been filed challenging the common Award dated 02.07.2016 (hereinafter referred to as the `Impugned Award') passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-01, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') in MACP No. 255/2012, titled as Rajvir vs Ranjeet Kumar & Ors., (MAC. APPL. 716/2016); MACP No. 257/2012, titled as Rajvir & Ors. vs. Rajneet Kumar & Ors., (MAC. APPL. 717/2016); and MACP No. 256/2012, titled as Rajvir & Anr. vs. Ranjeet Kumar & Ors., (MAC. APPL. 718/2016).

2. As all the three claim petitions and the appeals arise out of same accident, and the challenge of the appellant is also almost similar in all the three appeals, they are being considered and decided by this common judgment.

3. It was the case of the claimants before the learned Tribunal that on 29.07.2012, the deceased Sh. Nand Lal, Smt. Vidya Devi and Smt. Yogesh were coming from Agra towards Delhi in a car bearing registration No. DL-9CS-0626, which was being driven by Shri Rajvir. As they reached at Agra - Mathura Border, near Gwaliar Dhaba, the Offending Vehicle, being a Truck bearing registration no. HR-38N-7293, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the aforesaid car, resulting in the death of Sh. Nand Lal, Smt. Vidya Devi, and Smt. Yogesh, while Rajvir received serious injuries.

4. I must herein note that no appeal has been filed with respect to the compensation granted by way of the Impugned Award for the injuries suffered by Mr. Rajvir.

LOSS OF DEPENDENCY

MAC.APP. 716/2016

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that Sh. Nand Lal, on the date of the accident, was aged around 80 years. Though he was drawing pension, the claimants, that is, his sons, cannot be said to be financially dependant upon him. He submits that, in fact, there was no evidence on record which could establish the claimants to be financially dependant on their father Sh. Nand Lal.

6. Though the learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the above position of lack of evidence, he submits that deceased Sh. Nand Lal was looking after his grandchildren and, therefore, it has to be presumed that he was also supporting the family and resultantly, the claimants were entitled to compensation towards loss of dependency.

7. He submits that Sh. Nand Lal was also working as an agriculturist and, therefore, the claimants would be entitled to compensation towards loss of dependency. He, however, fairly admits that there was no evidence on record before the learned Tribunal to show that the deceased Sh. Nand Lal was working as an agriculturist or having any income therefrom.

8. In view of there being no evidence, as far as the plea of the respondents/claimants that Sh. Nand Lal was working as an agriculturist, cannot be accepted. The only income of the deceased-Sh. Nand Lal was, therefore, in the form of his pension.

9. The claimants are the sons of Sh. Nand Lal. They were major at the time of the accident and there was no evidence on record to show that they were financially dependant on their father. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. vs Delhi Metro Corporation and Anr., 2009(6) SCC 121, the claimants cannot be said to the financially dependant on their father. They would not be entitled to any compensation towards loss of dependency. In fact, on the contrary, the deceased must have been dependant upon the Claimants.

10. The award of compensation to the claimants towards `loss of dependency' is, therefore, set aside.

MAC.APP. 718/2016

11. In MAC. APP. 718/2016, similar submissions are being made for the compensation awarded towards the death of the deceased-Late Smt. Vidya, mother of the claimants.

12. It is admitted that she was aged around 70 years at the time of the accident, and was not having any source of income. In fact, for the said reason alone, she would have been financially dependant on the claimants rather than the other way round.

13. In my