IMPORTANT POINT
Legal representatives not dependent on the deceased are entitled only to compensation for loss to the estate, not for loss of dependency.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. G. Kato, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. H. Lampu, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellant, namely, M/s HDFC, ERGO Gen. Ins Co. Ltd, impugning the judgment and award dated 29.06.2023, passed by the learned Member Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh in MACT Case (Z) No. 05/2021, whereby, an award of Rs. 23,04,390/-(Rupees Twenty-three lakhs four thousand three hundred and ninety) was awarded in favour of respondent/claimant

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are as follows:

(i) That one Hage Talle, who was the original claimant, had filed a claim application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the learned Member Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro, claiming compensation on account of death of his brother Hage Tagia, on 18.08.2013, in a vehicular accident which happened at Bhalukpong.

(ii) It was averred in the claim petition, by the claimant, that on the day of the incident, at about 5:30 AM, the deceased Hage Tagia was riding on his own scooter near Vat Check Gate, Bhalukpong at main road of National Highway-NH52, a truck bearing registration No. NL-01-K-0699 coming from a wrong direction hit the deceased and ran over the body of the deceased causing instant death of the deceased at the spot of the accident. According to the post-mortem examination report the cause of the death of the deceased was due to multiple injuries on vital organs.

(iii) The original claimant, namely, Hage Talle being the younger brother of the deceased, in his claim petition, had prayed for a compensation amount of Rs. 60,25,000/- (Rupees Sixty lakh twenty-five thousand) and also prayed for grant of No-Fault liability of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) under Section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

(iv) During the pendency of the MACT Case (Z) No. 05/2021 before the learned Member Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro, the original claimant Hage Talle passed away. On his death, by the order dated 18.04.2022, another brother of the deceased, namely, Hage Hinda (present respondent) was allowed to be substituted as claimant in place of the deceased Hage Talle. The present appellant, who was the opposite party No. 1 before the Tribunal contested the case by filing a written statement.

(v) Upon pleadings of the parties, the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro framed the following issues for determination:

(i) Whether late Hage Tagia died as a result of injuries sustained by him in the road accident dated 18.08.2013 involving Tata truck bearing registration No. NL-01-K-0699.

(ii) Whether the accident took place due to rash negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

(iii) Whether the claimant is entitled to receive any compensation and if yes, to what extend and who amongst the opposite parties will be liable to pay the compensation.

(vi) In support of his claim, the claimant adduced evidences of 3(three) witnesses, whereas, the opposite party adduced evidence of one defence witness. Ultimately, after culmination of the enquiry the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro, passed the impugned judgement and award, dated 29.06.2023, wherein, all the 3(three) issues framed by the Tribunal were answered in affirmative. The Tribunal ultimately awarded a compensation amount of Rs. 23,04,391/- (Rupees Twenty-three lakhs four thousand three hundred ninety-one) with an interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the full amount in favour of the claimant/respondent Shri Hage Hinda.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant/Insurance Company has preferred this appeal mainly on the ground that the learned M