Non-dependent father as legal representative entitled to death compensation based on deceased son's notional income of Rs.25,000/- p.a., 40% future prospects, multiplier 18, filial consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses; interest enhanced to 9%.

JUDGMENT :

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, J.

The appellant feeling aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded in his favour vide award dated 10.11.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Shimla in MAC Petition No.29-S/2 of 2015/14, titled, Ratnoo Ram vs. HRTC and another has preferred the present appeal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,52,000/- in favour of the appellant along with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization of the amount.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the appellant is the unfortunate father of his deceased son Suresh who died in a motor vehicular accident occurred on 08.09.1992 when he was 18 years old.

3. The appellant filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the accident till the realization of the compensation.

4. The Tribunal below after receipt of reply filed by the respondents framed the issues and recorded the evidence. Thereafter, the Tribunal passed the award. The Tribunal below has held that the appellant was not dependent upon the deceased. However, it has been held that even if there was no dependency of the appellant, there is loss to the estate and a person who is legal representative, but not dependent, can yet be entitled to the estate of the deceased. Thus, awarded a sum of Rs.1,52,000/- in favour of the appellant along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the findings given by the Tribunal below holding that the appellant was not dependent are erroneous and further the definition of legal representative should be given wider interpretation for the purpose of determining the compensation as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments. The compensation awarded in favour of the appellant is on the lower side. No compensation on account of consortium has been awarded under the head of filial consortium and further, the interest awarded is also on a lower side.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation supported the award passed by the Tribunal below and argued that no interference is required.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel representing the respondent- Corporation and perused the material placed on record.

8. It is not in dispute that the deceased was the son of the appellant and was aged 18 years at the time of accident. The findings recorded by the Tribunal below to the effect that the appellant being father of the deceased is not entitled for compensation as legal representative under the head of loss of dependency are wrong and illegal. Even if the father was not dependent upon the deceased as held by the Tribunal below, he is entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased and thus, the compensation has to be assessed on the basis of the income of the deceased.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had the occasion to deal with similar proposition in Gujarat SRTC vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai [(1987) 3 SCC 234], wherein, it has been observed that a legal representative is one, who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent or child. In the present case, the appellant is the father of the deceased and thus, entitled to claim compensation. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the legal representativ