Compensation for loss of dependency must account for future prospects and multiple dependents, adhering to statutory provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

Anu Malhotra, J. The appellants No.1 to 7, namely, appellant No.1 Jamanti Devi (wife), appellant no.2 Seema Kumari (daughter), appellant No.3 Ruby Kumari (daughter), appellant No.4 Guddi Kumari (daughter), appellant No.5 Arjun Pandey (son), appellant No.6 Punit Kumar (son) and Rajmati Devi w/o late Sh. Shiv Nath Pandey (mother), the legal heirs of the deceased Kamal Dev Pandey, who expired on 15.8.2013 being hit on 14.8.2013 at about 8:35 p.m. by an Eicher Truck bearing registration No. DL-lLP-4714 and sustained fatal injuries, have sought modification of the judgment dated 5.5.2015 of the Court of the Judge, MACT (East), KKD Courts, Delhi in Suit No. 221/2013 and have sought enhancement of the award payable to them apart from seeking the just and reasonable compensation along with the interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization in their favour and against the respondents with the respondents arrayed to the appeal being respondent No.1 Maheshwar Rai, being the driver of the offending vehicle, respondent No.2 Rajesh Kumar Sahu being the owner of the said vehicle and the respondent No.3 TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. being the insurer.

2. Vide order dated 20.10.2015, the two applications bearing CM Nos. 24478-24479/2015 filed on behalf of the appellants seeking condonation of delay of 11 days in filing the appeal and 30 days' delay in re-filing the appeal were allowed and the delay in filing and re-filing of the appeal was condoned.

3. Vide CM No. 28843/2016 the appellants sought dispensation of the service upon the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle in as much as there had been no violation and the breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the respondent No.3 had been held liable to indemnify the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 which application vide order dated 29.8.2016 was allowed and the service upon the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had been dispensed with and they were directed to be deleted from the array of parties.

4. Vide order dated 29.8.2016, the MAC Appeal 831/2015 appeal was admitted and written submissions were submitted apart from oral submissions made on behalf of either side i.e., the appellants and the respondent No.3.

5. Vide the impugned order of which modification is sought, the learned Judge, MACT, East, Karkardooma Courts held the appellants herein entitled for the total amount of compensation towards all the heads as under:

"21. The petitioners are thus entitled for the total amount of compensation towards all the heads, which is as follows:

and awarded the amount of compensation of Rs.11,99,172/- in their favour and against the respondents and held vide paragraph 22 that in as much as the Insurance Company had not denied the policy as on the date of the accident as to who was liable to pay the compensation of amount with there being no violation of the policy conditions and there being nothing to support the permitted defence under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no recovery rights were granted and that the Insurance company i.e., the respondent No.3 to that MAC No. 221/2013 as also the respondent No.3 arrayed to the present appeal was to make good the compensation in terms of the accepted policy which was directed to be paid in terms of the awa