1. This Civil Ist Miscellaneous Appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by the Insurer New India Assurance Company, is directed against the award/ judgment dated 10-10-2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu in File No. 211/ Claims titled Devi Dass Vs Ranjit Singh Manhas and others.

2. For the death of Sh Mela Ram, an un-married farmer in a Motor Vehicle accident, nephew of the deceased, namely, Devi Dass respondent filed a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for claiming compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu against the appellant insurer as well as against the owner and driver of the vehicle involved in the accident.

3. Learned Tribunal by accepting the monthly income of the deceased at Rs 1200/- per month, after deducting 1/3rd amount as personal expenses of deceased by order dated 10-10-2003 assessed the loss of dependency at Rs 1,87, 200/- by adopting the multiplier of 13 in view of the age of the deceased taken as 45 years at the time of his death. The Tribunal while determining the compensation at the said loss of dependency also allowed an amount of Rs 5000/- towards funeral expenses. Before the Tribunal, the owner and driver did not contest the claim petition however, the appellant Insurer contested the claim after obtaining the permission under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Being aggrieved of the order of the Tribunal the appellant is in appeal.

4. The contention of Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant is two-fold. Firstly, he submits that the claimant being a major having attained the age of 30 years could not be treated as dependant upon the deceased so as to be entitled to maintain the application for compensation on account of loss of dependency. Secondly, he submits that the age of deceased was 49 years and not 45 years at the time of his death so the correct multiplier has not been adopted by the Tribunal for assessing the compensation.

5. It is not in dispute that the deceased was un-married and was living before his death with the claimant, therefore, he is the legal heir of the deceased. In terms of clause (c) of section 166 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, a legal heir of the deceased is entitled to maintain an application. But that by itself does not mean that he would be entitled to compensation for loss of dependency. The entitlement to the compensation of such person depends upon the factor of his dependency. If he is not dependant upon the deceased he would not be entitled to any compensation for loss of dependency.

6. In the instant case the learned Tribunal found the claimant entitled to compensation on account of loss of dependency because the deceased while living with the claimant was contributing to his family. The fact that the deceased was contributing in the house hold expenses of the family of claimant does not lead to the assumption that claimant was dependant upon the deceased. He being a major having no physical incapacity to earn his livelihood cannot in law be treated as dependant of the deceased so as to say that he was deprived of his dependency by the death of the deceased. The learned Tribunal was not therefore right in awarding compensation to the claimant on account of loss of dependency.

7. If the claimant was not entitled for compensation for loss of dependency whether he still would be entitled to compensation on account of no fault liability in terms of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

8. In my considered view the respondent Devi Dass would be entitled to the compensation payable on account of no fault liability in terms of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act irrespective of the dependency. The compensation payable on account of no fault liability is a statutory entitlement of the legal heir of the deceased not dependant upon the proof of loss of dependency. I am supported in this behalf by the judgment of Apex Court rendered in case Smt Manjuri Bera Vs The Oriental Insurance Company

Click Here to Read the rest of this document