Legal representatives can claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act regardless of dependency status, emphasizing a broader interpretation of dependency in joint family contexts.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. These appeals have arisen from a common judgment passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Surendranagar on 27.12.2002 in M.A.C.P. Nos. 127/1995 to 132/1995.

1.1 First Appeal No. 2645 of 2003 and First Appeal No. 2646 of 2003 are by the Insurance Company, while rest of the six appeals are from the side of the claimants.

2. The unfortunate incident occurred on 14.11.1994, where deceased Chhaganbhai Chothabhai was travelling with his wife Prabhaben Chhaganbhai and three minor children, Jagdish @ Bhavesh Chhaganbhai, Labhuben Chhaganbhai and Amit @ Lalo Chhaganbhai. They were returning in Tempo, bearing Registration No. GJ-1-V-3079 from Gondal to Ahmedabad, when they reach near Patiya of village Kotha Talavadi, on Rajkot - Limbdi National Highway No. 8A, a Luxury Bus, bearing registration No. GJ-3-T-8470 dashed the tempo, as it was in excessive speed and was trying to overtake a truck going ahead of it. As a result of the accident, all of them sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. The incident saw the death of all the family members.

2.1 The claim petition was filed by the father of deceased Chhaganbhai Chothabhai along with mother and brothers and sisters of deceased Chhaganbhai Chothabhai. During the pendency of the claim petition, below Exh.56, by an order dated 02.08.2002, the name of mother, brothers and sisters of the deceased were deleted by the Tribunal. All the six claim petitions were pursued by Chothabhai Punjabhai Kukadiya, who at the time of petitions was aged about 65 years.

2.2 The judgment was declared on 27.12.2002. Against that judgment, Chothabhai Punjabhai Kukadiya filed his challenge by filing First Appeal Nos. 565/2016 to 570/2016. During the pendency of filing, he died. Thereafter, by order of this Court dated 15.12.2003 in Civil Application No. 8384 of 2003, amendment was carried out and the mother, brothers and sisters of deceased Chhaganbhai Chothabhai came on record as heirs and legal representatives of deceased Chothabhai Punjabhai Kukadiya, in all the appeals.

2.3 The main contention of the insurance company is that by an order below Exh.56, when mother, brothers and sisters were deleted by an order of the Tribunal, Advocate Ms. Dimple A. Thaker submitted that they cannot now continue with appeals, since mother though alive did not pursue with the claim petition, and even the enhancement appeals which were filed, was lying in office objection, thereafter on the death of the father, all heirs cannot now be considered as dependents of the deceased son, hence, it is submitted that nephews and niece of the brothers and sisters, and even the brothers and sisters cannot be considered as heirs.

3. Learned advocate Mr. P.J. Yagnik for the appellants of First Appeal Nos. 565 to 570 of 2016 and respondent in First Appeal Nos. 2645 and 2646 of 2003, submitted that the issue of dependency would now bear no significance in view of the judgment of Apex court as well as this Court. Mr. Yagnik submitted that in a joint family all the persons contribute for the joint development of the family and each are dependent on the income of the others, hence, the issue of dependency, which has been raised, should have no countenance.

3.1 Referring to the judgment of Lata Wadhwa and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2001) 1 SCC 197, Mr. Yagnik submitted that the compensation granted for the minors are very less and would not even justify their life and the loss to the family owing to their death. For the compensation on the death of the son and daughter-in-law, Mr. Yagnik stated that, the compensation requires enhancement, since assessment has not been done in accordance to the evidence on record, where the deceased Chhaganbhai’s income was proved by the oral evidence of Babubhai Bhagwanbhai Patel, who was the time keeper in the Atul Enterprise and at Exh.74, Babubhai had specifically laid his evidence that deceased Chhaganbhai was working in Atul Enterprise as a permanent worker from 1