The need for evidence of dependency in awarding compensation under the MV Act.

H. Baruah, J.

1. On 28th May, 2004, a bus bearing registration No. MZ-01/A-6997 belonging to respondent No. 2 herein, met with an accident in between Aibawk and Tachhip where Zokunga, the conductor was ran over by the said bus while he was under it. The driver of the said offending bus, respondent No. 3 herein, started his bus without giving any instruction to the Conductor of the said bus and had driven, as a result, the Conductor, the deceased, was ran over. The report of the Officer in-Charge, Kulikawn Police Station goes to show that due to carelessness of the driver, the deceased was ran over. The deceased was, however, taken in injured condition to Civil Hospital, Aizawl for treatment but he subsequently succumbed to his injuries on 12th July, 2004. A Death Certificate was accordingly issued.

2. On the death of the deceased, a claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl for grant of compensation by Rev. K. Ramliana. After due enquiry, the learned Member, MACT awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5,48,197/- inclusive of medical expenses during treatment and conventional amount of Rs.10,000/-

3. The appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 15.2.2005 filed this present appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988.

4. We have heard Mr. M.M. Ali, learned Counsel for the appellant, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the insurer of the offending vehicle and also heard Mrs. Helen Dawnliani, learned Counsel for the respondent/claimant Rev. K. Ramliana.

5. Mr. M.M. Ali, learned Counsel for the appellant challenged the judgment and award mainly on two issues:

(i) For that the claimant/respondent is not entitled to file a claim petition, claiming compensation on the death of the deceased; and

(ii) That the brother of the deceased is not entitled to receive compensation in similar fashion like that of widow, son, and other legal representatives of the deceased.

The appropriate multiplier in such a situation would be the age of the claimant who filed the claim petition, when there is no evidence to show the age of the deceased brother on whose behalf the claim petition was filed by respondent No. 1.

6. Mr. M.M. Ali, in support of his contention, more particularly in the context of issue No. 2 relies on a decision of this Hon'ble High Court in the case between United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sapchhawna and Ors. reported in 2006(3) TAC 875(Gau.). Referring to Paras 10 & 11 of the judgment it is argued by Mr. M.M. Ali that it would be appropriate for this Court to offer some compensation not in the scale that can be offered to the other legal representatives like wife, son, daughter etc. That apart, he also argues that the deceased being unmarried, 2/3 of the income is required to be deducted. Mr. M.M. Ali, however, does not disagree with the entitlement of compensation under Section 140 of the Act. Mr. M.M. Ali, therefore, in view of the facts and evidence appearing in the face of the record submits that the compensation can be awarded to the claimant/brother of the deceased by applying appropriate multiplier with reference to the age of the claimant alone and not with reference to the age of the deceased, or the younger brother of the deceased on whose behalf the claim petition was filed.

7. Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, however, contradicts with the submissions of Mr. M.M. Ali that the appropriate multiplier with reference to the age of the claimant can be applied. While arguing the case, she has stated that the age of the younger brother of the deceased finds place in the evidence of the claimant. When the claim application was file by the claimant on behalf of the younger brother who is wholly dependant upon the income of the deceased, the age of the younger brother can be taken into consideration, an appropriate multiplier can be applied. Since the age of the younger brother of the deceased, as per evidence of the claimant stands at 31, the a