Legal representatives of a deceased may claim compensation for loss to the estate even if they are not dependents, differentiating between loss to estate and loss of dependency.

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. An Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the Insurance company to challenge the Impugned Award dated 26.08.2022, wherein a total compensation has been granted in the sum of Rs.14,52,200/- along with interest @ 9% per annum to the Legal representatives of the deceased, Sh. Shyamal.

2. Briefly stated, in the early morning of 06.10.2015, at about 05:55 AM, at Road No.51, Azadpur, Delhi, a Truck bearing No. UK-04CA-0965 hit the Cyclist- Sh. Shyamal, from behind due to which he suffered fatal injuries. The injured was shifted to Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital, where MLC No.105989/2015 was prepared and he was declared "brought dead"

3. FIR No.636/2015, under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC, 1860 was registered at P.S. Adarsh Nagar, Delhi, against the Driver/ Sh. Shahid.

4. After completion of investigations, a Detailed Accident Report was filed before the learned Tribunal, which was treated as the Claim Petition u/s. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide Order dated 22.12.2015. A separate Claim Petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was also filed by Smt. Dev Kumari and Smt. Kusum, the wife and daughter of the deceased.

5. The Respondent No.5/Smt. Bindeshwari @ Urmila @ Vindeshwari and Respondent No.6/Smt. Sushila Devi, the sisters of the deceased, were also impleaded.

6. The Tribunal, after due consideration of the evidence and material placed before it, granted compensation in the sum of Rs.14,52,200/- i.e. Rs. 6,91,000/- to Respondent No.5/ Smt. Bindeshwari @ Urmila; Rs. 7,11,000/- to Respondent No.6/Smt. Sushila Devi and only Rs.50,200/- to Smt. Dev Kumari, the estranged wife of the deceased, along with interest @ 9% perannum, while the daughter was granted no Compensation as it came on record that she was not the daughter of the deceased.

7. Learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company has argued that as per the evidence on record, Smt. Dev Kumari, the wife of deceased Shyamal, has left the matrimonial home barely one year after the marriage. She got married to another person Sukh Lal for which sufficient evidence has been placed on record. The daughter/Smt. Kusuma was also not born from the wedlock of Smt. Dev Kumari and the deceased. Thus, the compensation has been rightly denied to the Smt. Kusuma, the daughter, while only Rs.50,200/- has been awarded to the estranged wife Smt. Dev Kumari.

8. However, the only ground of appeal is that the loss of dependency has been erroneously calculated by considering Smt. Bindeshwari and Smt. Sushila Devi, the married sisters, as dependents upon the deceased/Sh. Shyamal and making a deduction of 1/3^rd towards personal and living expenses. There is no cogent evidence of their dependency on the deceased brother and therefore, the Award granting compensation is liable to be set aside.

9. Learned counsel on behalf of Respondent No. 5 and 6 has submitted that no Appeal has been preferred by the wife and the daughter. In so far as the two married sisters are concerned, it is submitted that there is cogent evidence adduced by them to prove that the deceased along with his father, had been residing with Respondent No.6/Smt. Sushila Devi who has been taking care of all their requirements. Even the last rites of the father as well as of Shyamal, had been performed by the two sisters. It is, therefore, submitted that the compensation has been rightly granted and there is no merit in the present Appeal.

10. Submissions heard and record perused.

11. The grievance of the Insurance Co