JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 arising out of the judgment and award dated 31.12.2019 rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) and 10th Additional District Judge, Vadodara (the Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1750 of 2009 (claim petition), whereby, the Tribunal was pleased to award compensation of Rs.2,62,320/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization against the total claim of Rs.50 lakh, as claimed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - original claimants towards the death of the deceased. Accordingly, the appellant – insurance company – original opponent No. 2 has preferred this appeal challenging the said award.

2. Since the facts of the case are not in dispute, the Court deems it proper not to discuss the same.

3. Heard, learned advocate Mr. Maulik Shelat for the appellant, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Mohsin M. Hakim for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned advocate Mr. Rahul Dholakia for the respondent No. 5.

4. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned advocate for the appellant is that the award of compensation under the head of dependency benefit in the absence of any evidence on record to show that the claimants are, in fact, dependent on the income of the deceased, is against the settled legal position and accordingly, the Tribunal has materially erred in awarding the compensation under the head of dependency benefit. In support of such submission, the learned advocate for the appellant – insurance company has relied upon following decisions:

i) Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2007 SC 1474;

ii) Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation, MANU/SC/0606/2009;

iii) decision dated 22.01.2016 of this Court rendered in First Appeal No. 2188 of 2002.

4.1 The learned advocate for the appellants further submitted that the Tribunal has also erred in assuming the income of the deceased without there being any proof in that regard. Accordingly, it is urged that the impugned judgment and award requires to be modified suitably and thereby, requested to allow this appeal.

5. Per contra, while opposing the present appeal, the learned advocates for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5 submitted that in view of settled law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions in Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Others, MANU/SC/0606/2009 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, MANU/SC/1366/2017, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation, under different heads and accordingly, this appeal being bereft of any merits, deserves to be dismissed.

6. Regard being had to the submissions made and considering the impugned judgment and award so also the material available on record vis-a-vis the decisions relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellant, it appears that for the death of the deceased, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,62,320/- under different heads. So far as the facts of the accident as well as the income of the deceased are concerned, there is no dispute. The learned advocate for the appellant has mainly submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously awarded an amount under the head of dependency benefit although there was no evidence to suggest that the claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased. In this regard, if the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is referred to, it can be summarized as under:

Head Amt. (Rs.)

Loss of Dependency Benefit 2,32,320/-

Loss of Estate 15,000/-

Funeral Expenses 15,000/-

Total 2,62,320/-

6.1 In this regard, if the decision relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellant – insurance rendered in First Appeal No. 2188 of 2002 to First Appeal No. 2195 of 2002, the Court, after referring various decisions of the Apex Court viz. in Sarla Verma (supra), Manjuri Bera (supra) etc., has held as under:

“9.03. Now, so far as the amount awarded under the head of loss