Legal representatives can file for compensation without proving dependency; statutory compensation fixed under Section 140(2) forms part of the deceased's estate.

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

The instant appeal is maintained by the appellant- petitioner under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘MV Act’) against the impugned award dated 23.07.2013, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, District Solan, HP, in MAC Petition No.20-S/2 of 2010, with a prayer to modify the impugned award and the appellant be held entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs.11,00,000/- alongwith interest.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, giving rise to the present appeal, are that the petitioner (appellant herein) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act, whereby he sought compensation on account of death of his uncle Shri Bhagat Ram, who was employed as Beldar with Public Works Department (PWD), Sub Divison Dilman, District Sirmour. It was averred by the petitioner that on 26.12.2009, at about 12:30 p.m., when his uncle Bhagat Ram was working by the side of road near Bal Bharti School, Maryog, he was hit by a vehicle bearing registration No.HR-31F-0072, being driven by respondent No.3 in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the said accident, his uncle sustained multiple injuries on his head and leg and he was taken to IGMC, Shimla for treatment and thereafter he succumbed to the injuries on 03.01.2010. As per the petitioner, at the time of death, the deceased was 53 years old and he was getting salary of Rs.12,000/- per month. It has been averred by the petitioner that the deceased was issue-less and was having only one nephew, i.e. the petitioner, who was brought up by the deceased just like his son. He was residing with the deceased and was dependent upon him. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2-Munish Kumar, being driven by respondent No.3 and it was insured with respondent No.1- Bajaj Alliaz General Insurance Company. Hence, the petitioner sought compensation to the tune of Rs.11,00,000/-.

3. Respondent No.1/Insurance Company, in its reply, raised the preliminary objections qua maintainability, that the vehicle was being driven in violation of the provisions of MV Act, that the driver was not possessing any driving licence etc. On merits, it was averred that the petitioner was not a legal heir of the deceased. It was further averred that the vehicle was being driven in violation of the mandatory conditions of the insurance policy and the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence. It was also averred that the amount of compensation, as claimed, was highly exaggerated.

4. In their reply, respondents No.2 and 3, i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle, pleaded that the deceased suddenly started crossing the road on a sharp curve without noticing that vehicle was coming from the opposite side. It was further averred that the deceased himself was negligent and responsible for this accident, hence, they were not liable to pay any compensation. It was pleaded that the claim filed by the petitioner is not maintainable at his instance.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal below framed the following issues on 21.04.2011.:-

“1. Whether Sh. Bhagat Ram died in an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, what amount and rate of interest, the petitioner is entitled for compensation? OPP

3. Whether respondent No.1 is held liable to make the payment of compensation as indemnifier? OPP.

4. Whether the petition is not maintainable?OPR-1

5. Whether the vehicle in question was driven in breach of terms and conditions of policy? OPR-1

6. Relief.”

6. The parties led their evidence and after hear