Point of Law: Where claimants are non-dependent brothers/sisters claiming loss of estate, savings can be taken as 15% of the income and such savings then multiplied to compute the total loss of estate of the claimants.

JUDGMENT :

MALASRI NANDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners as well as Ms. M. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the learned Member, MACT, Tinsukia, dated 21.03.2011 in MAC Case No. 145/2009, awarding compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) in favour of the sister of the deceased, claimant/ appellant No. 2 Miss. Mrinali Konwar.

3. As there is no dispute regarding death of Mridul Konwar in a road traffic accident, which occurred on 09.08.2009 at about 10.00 P.M. due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-23-E-3123 (Bolero GLX) and liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only points to be considered here in this case is:

“Whether the claimants/appellants being major brothers and sister of the deceased claimed to be dependent on his income are entitled to get any compensation.”

4. It was urged by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no prohibition under the Motor Vehicles Act for the legal representatives to maintain a claim petition and that the deceased during his lifetime had contributed a portion of his income to them and as such loss of dependency should be considered. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following case laws:

(i) The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd vs. M. Shanthi and Others, AIR 2011 Madras 118

(ii) Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, AIR 2019 SC (Supp) 906

(iii) Rajesh and Others vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54

(iv) Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343

5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company has argued on the point by referring Para-9 of the judgment of the Trial Court wherein, it is clearly stated that the claimants are major brothers and sister and as such, they cannot be stated as dependents on the income of the deceased. There is no whisper on the evidence of the witnesses that the claimants are unable to do any work due to their disability. Apart from that the sister was not examined in the case and as such, the Insurance Company did not get any opportunity to cross-examine her. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company referred following case laws in support of his submissions:

(i) Smt. Manjuri Bera vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2007) 10 SCC 643

(ii) Mrs. Hafizun Begum vs. Mohd. Ikram Heque and Others, (2007) 10 SCC 715

6. In the case of Manjuri Bera (Supra), it has been held that-“the liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, does not cease because there is absence of dependency. The right to file a claim application has to be considered in the background of right to entitlement. While assessing the quantum, the multiplier system is applied because of deprivation of dependency. In other words, multiplier is a measure. There are three stages while assessing the question of entitlement. Firstly, the liability of the person who is liable and the person who is to indemnify the liability, if any. Next is the quantification and Section 166 is primarily in the nature of recovery proceedings. The liability in terms of Section 140 of the Act as stated above, does not cease because of absence of dependency.

7. Section 165 of the M.V. Act also throws some light on the controversy. The explanation includes the liability under Sections 140 and 163-A. Judged in that background where a legal representative who is not a dependant files an application for compensation, the quantum cannot be less than the liability referable to Section 140 of the Act. Therefore, even if there is no loss of dependency the claimant if he or she is a legal representative will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall not be less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act.

8. I have gone throug