Point of Law: To maintain a claim petition it is sufficient for the claimant to establish that there is loss of dependency and every legal representative who suffers on account of death of a person in a motor vehicle accident have the remedy for realization of compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.

1. Both the above captioned first appeals under Section 173 read with Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arising out of common judgment and award, are at the instance of the appellant - original opponent no.6 in First Appeal No.1792 of 2020 and the appellant - original opponent no.3 in the First Appeal No.2222 of 2020 respectively, and is directed against the self same judgment and award dated 15.01.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Gandhinagar in M.A.C.P. No.151 of 2010 by which the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the original claimant (opponent no.6).

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal may be summarized as under :

2.1 The first appeal No.1792 of 2020 is filed by the appellant - original opponent no.6 (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. - insurance company of the Tavera Car No.GJ-18-AC-7805) and the first appeal No.2222 of 2020 is filed by the appellant - original opponent no.3 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. - insurance company of the truck No. GJ-9-P-3278).

2.2 The opponent no.6 (original claimant) herein is the real sister of the deceased – Rakesh Shantilal Sharma. The claim petition was filed by the opponent no.6 (original claimant) being legal representative of the deceased - Rakesh Shantilal Sharma. Before accident, the deceased was residing with his sister as she sponsored him and was brought up by her. The deceased settled in UK with his sister – Minakshi Shantilal i.e. the original claimant. The parents of the deceased died before the accident. Except the opponent no. 6 - original claimant, there is no one representing the estate of the deceased.

2.3 On 04.10.2009, at about 5’o clock in the morning, the deceased was travelling from Dehgam to Ahmedabad in the Tavera Car, bearing registration No.GJ-18-AC-7805. At the same time, the truck loaded with wooden log, bearing registration No.GJ-9-P-3278 was stationary on road. The Tavera car, in which the deceased was travelling, dashed into the truck, due to which, the deceased – Rakesh Shantilal Sharma received fatal injuries and died on the spot.

2.4 A Criminal complaint came to be lodged by the driver of the truck against the driver of the Tavera car and charge-sheet came to be filed against the driver of the Tavera car.

2.5 The original claimant, being sister of the deceased – Rakesh Shantilal Sharma, filed the claim petition before the MACT (Main), Gandhinagar, claiming an amount of dependency loss as after completion of education at UK, the deceased was working as a teacher with South Thames College and the claimant was dependent on the income of the deceased. It was further contended that on account of sad demise of the deceased, the opponent no.6 (original claimant) suffered mental shock and agony and lost the love and affection of her beloved brother. The deceased was earning 2500 pounds per month and if the accident had not occurred, there were all chances of increase in income of the deceased in future. The opponent no.6 (original claimant) claimed the amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- towards compensation.

2.6 The following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal at Exh.28 for determination of the claim, which reads thus:

1. Whether it is proved that the deceased died on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident?

2. What amount, if any, the claimant is entitled to by way of compensation and from which of the opponent?

3. What order and award?

2.7 The findings arrived at by the Tribunal on the above issues reads thus:

1. In the affirmative (60:40)

2. In partly Affirmative, as per final order.

3. As per final order.

2.8 The original opponents nos.1 and 2 being driver and owner of the truck and the original opponents nos. 4 and 5 being driver and owner of the Tavera car, though served, had chosen not to appear either in person or through an advocate to contest the claim petition.

2.9 The original opponent