Legal representatives who are not dependent on the deceased are not entitled to compensation for loss of dependency under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the tribunal") in MACP No. 262/2002 by which the learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,80,821/- to the original claimants towards compensation for the death of the deceased-Vimlaben, original opponent No. 3-National Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred the present Appeal.

2. At the outset it is required to be noted that the accident and the deceased-Vimlaben died in a vehicular accident is not disputed. The only question for the consideration of this Court is whether the original Claim Petition at the instance of the original claimants for getting compensation for the death of the deceased-Vimlaben was maintainable and/or if maintainable, what amount original claimants were entitled to?

2.1 The deceased was a Doctor of Government Hospital and was drawing pension of Rs. 7200/- per month. Original claimant No. 1 was the brother of the deceased and original claimant No. 2 was the nephew of the deceased and son of original claimant No. 1, who were residing and staying separately. By the impugned judgment and award the learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,80,821/- to the original claimants towards compensation for the death of the deceased under the head of;

"Rs.2,80,821 Loss of dependency"

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award the appellant herein-Insurance Company has preferred the present Appeal.

3. Shri D.B. Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in passing the impugned judgment and award awarding compensation to the original claimants for the death of the deceased. It is further submitted by Shri Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the learned tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 2,80,821/- towards loss of dependency to the original claimants, who were not staying with the deceased and were not dependent upon the income of the deceased and/or dependent upon the deceased. It is further submitted by Shri Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that as such the original claimants are practicing lawyers, one aged about 74 years and another aged 36 years and both were not staying with the deceased and was staying separately, and therefore, as both the original claimants were not dependent upon the income of the deceased and/or were not dependent upon the deceased in any manner, the learned tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 2,80,821 towards loss of dependency to the original claimants.

3.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that as such as none of the original claimants were dependent upon the deceased and/or her income and were not staying with the deceased, and therefore, the learned tribunal ought to have dismissed the Claim Petition by observing that as they were not dependent the Claim Petition was liable to be rejected and they were not entitled to any amount of compensation.

3.2 In support of his above submissions, Shri Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company has heavily relied upon the following decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court:--

"(1) Sarla Verma (Smt) and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in: (2009) 6 SCC 121;

(2) Mahendrakumar Manilal Patel & Anr v. Ramjibhai Dalsibhai Chaudhary & Ors reported in: 2006 (1) GLR 637;

(3) Unreported decision of this Court in the case of Economic Transport Organization Versus Kena Pankaj Patel and others, rendered in First Appeal No. 5182 of 1995 with First Appeal No. 6462 of 1995 (para 3.1);

(4) Unreported decision of this Court in the case of Dilipbhai Guljibhai Gamit Versus Mahemmedbhai A. Bardoliya and another, rendered in First Appeal No. 6559 of 19