Point of Law: Section 110-B of Act Claims Tribunal is authorized to make an award determining amount of compensation.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. B. K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R.K. Bhatra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

2. This is an appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the judgment and order dated 20.06.2013, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 865 of 2007.

3. It is to be mentioned here that the appellants, as the claimants, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, before the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup at Guwahati, which was accordingly registered as MAC Case No. 865 of 2007, seeking compensation for the death of their brother/uncle- Late Ranjit Kumar Das, who died in a motor accident took place on 19.02.2007 at National Highway 37, near IOC, Betkhchi, under Gorchuk Out Post, Fatasil Ambari P.S.

4. The brief facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, is that on 19.02.2007, the persons, namely, Rajat Ch. Kalita, Ranjit Kr. Das and Jagat Saharia, were proceeding by a vehicle, bearing Registration No. AS-01-AA-8932 (Tata Spacio), as passengers and when they arrived at Betkuchi, all of a sudden, a Mini Bus, bearing Registration No. AS-25-1969, proceeding from Lalmati towards Jalukbari side, coming in a rash and negligent manner, knocked down the Tata Spacio and as a result of which, 2 (two) passengers, namely, Ranjit Kr. Das and Jagat Saharia, sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. For the said accident, 3 (three) numbers of MAC cases were filed- one for the injured, Rajat Ch. Kalita, and 2 (two) other cases were filed by the legal representatives of the deceased, Ranjit Kr. Das and Jagat Saharia, claiming compensation. The respondents entered into appearance and contested the case by filing their Written Statements on the claim petitions. The trial of all 3 (three) cases were held analogously and after recording the evidence and hearing arguments of both sides, the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, passed a common judgment and order on 20.06.2013. So far as the claim petition, being MAC Case No. 865/2007, filed by the present appellants as claimants, is concerned, the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, held that the appellants/claimants are not entitled to get compensation, except the funeral expenses of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only.

5. On being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 20.06.2013, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup at Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 865/2007, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants on the ground that the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, came into an erroneous conclusion that the case filed by the brothers and niece of the deceased is not maintainable and they are not entitled to get any compensation. The learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, while holding that the claimants cannot be considered as the dependents, overlooked and ignored the material portion of the evidence of Ms. Parul Das, the PW-2, which was sufficient to hold that the claimants were not only the legal representatives of the deceased but also fully dependent upon the deceased. The learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, also failed to consider the fact that they are entitled to file the claim petition and to get compensation as they are the legal representatives of the deceased, who suffers on account of death of their brother/uncle due to motor vehicle accident, having remedy for realization of compensation as provided under Sections 166 to 175 of the Motor Vehicle Act and the same is in consonance with the principles of law of torts that every injury must have a remedy. Further, the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, also misinterpreted the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (20