The main legal point established in the judgment is that only dependents of the deceased are entitled to compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Janak Raj Kotwal, J.

1. This is an appeal in a Motor Accident Claim case. Heard. I have perused the record.

2. On 29.09.2007, S. Amarjeet Singh (hereinafter the deceased) was travelling from Kishtwar to Jammu by a car bearing registration No. JK02 D-9212. Respondent No. 3, Inderjit Singh Bali, who was owner of the car, was on the wheel. The car met with an accident near a place called Thathri and plunged into a trench. Deceased suffered grievous injuries. He died.

3. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, (hereinafter the claimants) who are the sons of the deceased, filed a claim for compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter the Act) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter the Tribunal) against the owner and insurer (herein appellant) of the offending car.

4. Learned Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 30.04.2010 found that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 3 and awarded compensation of Rs. 17,53,800/to claimants. The Tribunal foisted liability of paying the compensation on the appellant.

5. In assessing the compensation, learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence found that the deceased was a Government servant serving as Manager QC in the Food Corporation of India. His monthly salary was Rs. 24,149/. He was aged 54 years as at the time of his death. Learned Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the salary towards personal expenses of the deceased and took the remaining Rs. 16,100/as his monthly contribution towards the claimants. Annual contribution of the deceased towards the claimants thus came out as Rs. 1,93,200/-, which became the 'multiplicand' for calculating compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'. On the basis of the age of the deceased, applicable multiplier being 11, learned Tribunal scaled it down to 9. Compensation under this head thus amounting to Rs. 17,38,800/(1,93,200 x 9). In addition, learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000/as compensation for funeral expenses. Total compensation thus awarded was Rs. 17,53,800/.

6. Appellant-Insurance Company has impugned the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal to the extent of the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. Award has been assailed on the ground that only respondent No. 2, who is a MBA student, should have been taken as dependent of the deceased, whereas respondent No. 1 could not have been because he is gainfully employed as per the evidence available before the Tribunal. It is also contended that as per the evidence, the basic salary of the deceased was Rs. 10,600/and the total amount which he was drawing after deduction was Rs. 19,481/. It is also contended that both the claimants were major but this aspect was ignored by the learned Tribunal.

7. Mr. C.S. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that compensation under the head Toss of dependency' is payable only to the dependent legal representatives of a deceased. Compensation under this head is paid for the monetary loss suffered by the dependants. Learned Tribunal, therefore, submitted Mr. Gupta, has fallen in error by taking the total strength of the family of the deceased as three and thereby deducting only 1/3rd of the salary towards his personal expenses. Mr. Gupta cited Supreme Court judgment in Smt. Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Company limited and Anr. 2007 (3) Supreme 620.

8. Mr. Surinder Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand supported the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. He submitted that under section 166 of the Act, all the legal representatives of deceased are entitled to claim compensation irrespective of the fact whether they were dependent upon the deceased or not. He cited Smt. Lalitha and Ors. v. Dashanbhat Haribansh Bhat, AIR 1998 Karnatka 344 and Kulsum Bai v. Kallu and ors. AIR 200 MP 292.

9. Claimant-respondent No. 2, Harbaksh Singh has deposed before the learned Tribunal as claimants' witness.