Point of law: As per language of Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, the legal representatives who are non-dependants could also lay claim for payment of compensation by making application under Section 166 of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Additional District Judge, No. 2, Kamrup, in MAC Case No. 131/2016 dated 23.12.2015.

2. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition awarding compensation of Rs. 4, 67,000/-(Rupees four lakh and sixty-seven thousand) only with interest @6% p.a. Aggrieved by the same the present appeal has been preferred.

3. As there is no dispute regarding death of one Ande Pator in a road traffic accident which occurred on 28.05.2009 at about 1:30 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No. AS-23/8833(Tanker) and liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point remains for consideration in the appeal is-

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for reduction or enhancement;

4. The principle ground urged by the appellant is that the Tribunal has erred in awarding the compensation under the head loss of dependency. The claimant is not entitled for compensation under the head loss of dependency for the reason that he is major and it is not established that he was the dependant of the deceased.

5. It is also argued that the deceased was 30 years of age at the time of accident and the claimant/respondent No. 1 being an able bodied major brother having his own income cannot be stated to be dependent on the income of the deceased. As such the claimant is not entitled to get the amount of the compensation under the head loss of dependency.

In support of his submissions learned counsel has placed reliance on the following case laws:-

a. AIR 2007 SC 1474 Smt. Manjuri Bera Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd & Anr.

b. 2005 (1) TAC 277 (KAR) A. Manavalagan Vs. Krishnamurthy & Ors.

c. (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 623 (Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn Vs. Lalnipuii.

6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent has argued that as per language of Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, the legal representatives who are non-dependants could also lay claim for payment of compensation by making application under Section 166 of the Act.

7. Learned counsel also contended that there is no definition of legal representative in Motor Vehicles Act but the definition of legal representative is provided in Section 2(11) of CPC. Learned counsel has referred the following case laws in support of his submissions:-

a. (2014) 3 SCC 394, Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel And Another Vs. United India Insurance And Another .

b. Gangaraju Sowmini and Ors. Vs. Alavala Sudhakar Reddy and Ors. reported in MAC No. 364 and 1020/2010.

8. Learned counsel for the claimant/respondent has further argued that learned Trial Court has rightly awarded compensation which cannot be interfered with.

9. I have heard both.

10. The Tribunal has failed to take note of the fact that the claimant is the brother of the deceased. On perusal of the judgment the Tribunal while considering the quantum of compensation has taken the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/-per month and Rs. 36,000/-p.a. and to add 50% of his income for future prospect and deducted 50% towards personal expenses as he was a bachelor and thus arrived at Rs. 4,67,000/-(Rupees four lakh and sixty-seven thousand) only, by applying the multiplier and other conventional heads.

11. In keeping the contention of the appellant in mind, P.W. 1 i.e., the claimant in his evidence has nowhere deposed that the deceased and the claimant were living together and the claimant was depending on the income of the deceased.

12. In order to prove the fact that the claimant was depending on the income of the deceased, no other evidence is placed before the Court. Admittedly, the claimant is the elder brother of the deceased.

13. In his cross examination, P.W. 1 has clearly stated that he was working as watchman in Ghoronia Tea Estate. Having considered the materials on record, when there is no documentary or oral proof that t