The main legal point established in the judgment is that the liability to pay compensation under Section 164 of the M.V Act does not cease even in the absence of dependency, and the right to file a claim application should be considered in the context of entitlement.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. None appears for the respondent No. 2 despite notice.

2. By filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended) (M.V. Act), the appellant/claimant being aggrieved with the Judgment & Order dated 29.05.2023 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl (Tribunal) in MACT Case No. 26/2020 dismissing the claim of the appellant has preferred the instant appeal. It is the case of the appellant that her parents while travelling in a Grand i10 vehicle bearing registration No. MZ-09 -1721 on 15.04.2020 driven by the respondent No. 2 met with an accident at Nausel Phai road in the outskirt of Sihphir Venghlun village, Aizawl District, Mizoram. As a result of the accident, both her parents died on the spot. However, the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle i.e., respondent No. 2 survived with minor injuries. The appellant due to the said accident and loss of her parents filed two (2) claim applications before the Tribunal i.e., MACT Case Nos. 25 and 26 of 2020 under Section 164 of the M.V Act as amended. In support of her claim, the appellant examined herself as the sole claimant’s witness while the respondent No. 2 who was the owner-cum-driver of the accident vehicle besides filing written statement examined himself as his own witness. As for the respondent No. 1 Insurance Company, no witness was examined but they filed their written statement. The learned Tribunal vide its Judgment & Order dated 29.05.2023 awarded a sum of Rs. 6,25,000/-to the appellant along with interest @ 7% per annum in MACT Case No. 25/2020. However, vide the impugned Judgment & Order dated 29.05.2023, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim of the appellant in MACT Case No. 26/2020 upon finding that the appellant was not dependent upon her deceased stepfather. Aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court.

3. Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal in coming to its finding that the appellant was not dependent upon her stepfather solely relied upon the submissions made by the respondent No. 2 in his written statement. The respondent No. 2 in his written statement had stated that the appellant was residing with her grandfather and that she was not dependent upon her deceased stepfather particularly since her parents did not enter into marriage during their lifetime. The learned counsel however submits that apart from making such statement, the evidence to that effect is nowhere to be found in the deposition of the respondent No. 2 either in his examination-in-chief or in his cross-examination. Therefore, the statements made by the respondent No. 2 has no evidential value in so far as the allegation that the appellant was not dependent upon her stepfather or her parents. In this connection, the learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Manjuri Bera (Smt) -Vs- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2007) 10 SCC 643 wherein, at paragraph No. 13 of the said judgment, the Apex Court has held amongst others that the liability under Section 140 of the 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. The learned counsel submits that before the amendment of the M.V Act, the relevant Section was Section 163A as well as Section 140 of the M.V Act, under which a claim can be made for compensation on no fault basis. The said Sections have now been replaced by Section 164 of the M.V Act after amendment. Therefore, as long as the appellant is able to show that she is the heir of her deceased parents, there is no requirement on her part to show that she was dependent upon her deceased parents. The learned counsel submits that the appellant even otherwise had clearly proved the fact that she was dependent upo