Only legal representatives dependent on the deceased are entitled to compensation under 'loss of dependency', and the insurer has the right to file an appeal against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

Janak Raj Kotwal, J.

This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against judgment and award dated 30.10.2013 rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Poonch (hereinafter to be referred as the Tribunal) in a claim for compensation under Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the 1 Act filed by legal representatives, Respondents 1 to 7 (hereinafter to be referred as the claimants), of one Mohd. Mumtaz Khan, who died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 15.02.2010.

2. Heard Mr. Sandeep Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and M/s A.M. Malik and Ch. Ghulam Murtaza, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

3. On 15.02.2010 the deceased was travelling by a bus bearing Registration No. JK02D-2055. The bus met with an accident at village, Ramluta on Bryani Gali-Mendhar Road. Deceased died on spot. Claimants, who comprise of wife, sons and daughter of the deceased, filed Claim application under Section 166 of the Act. Learned Tribunal after inquiry found that the accident had occurred due to negligence of the driver of the offending bus and, while applying the multiplier method, awarded compensation of Rs. 6, 68,000/- in favour of the claimants under following heads :

1	Loss of dependency :	Rs. 6,48,000/-
2	Funeral Expenses :	Rs. 5,000/-
3	Loss of Estate :	Rs. 5,00/-
4	Loss of consortium :	Rs. 10,000/-
	Total :	Rs. 6,68,000/-

4. Appellant-Insurer assails the award of the learned Tribunal on the quantum of compensation only, mainly, on the ground that Claimants 2 to 7, who are major children of the deceased having no physical incapacity to earn their livelihood, cannot in law be treated as dependants of the deceased. The other ground of assail to the impugned award is that income of the deceased was not proved before the Tribunal inasmuch as no income proof was produced by the claimants and learned Tribunal erred in holding that his income was Rs. 7500/- per month. It is alleged also that learned Tribunal did not fix any date for hearing arguments in the case; and did not provide opportunity of hearing to the appellant. It is contended that deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased was not made in accordance with law.

5. Mr. Sandeep Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that only dependants of the victim of an accident are entitled to compensation so loss of dependency suffered by a claimant is required to be proved before the Tribunal. Compensation cannot be paid to a claimant, who at the time of death of the deceased was not dependent upon him. Mr. Singh argued that Claimants 2 to 7 as at the time of his death were grown up children of the deceased so they are not entitled to any compensation. Mr. Singh sought to point out that learned Tribunal did not record any finding in regard to the dependency of Claimants 2 to 7 on the deceased.

6. Per contra, Mr. A.M. Malik, learned counsel for claimants supported the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. Mr. Malik submitted that under Section 166 of the Act, all legal representative of the deceased are entitled to claim compensation irrespective of the fact whether they were dependent on the deceased or not. Mr. Malik also raised objection to maintainability of appeal on quantum of compensation by the insurer.

7. It is noticed that claimants (respondents) 2, 3, 4 and 5 are sons of the deceased and 6 and 7 are daughters. In the Claim application they have disclosed their age as 32, 28, 26, 21, 22 and 20 respectively. Having regard to the age of these claimants, the question whether they are entitled to compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' has importance and calls for consideration. A similar question has been considered by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harpreet Singh and Ors., 2015 ACJ 1922. I, therefore, extract and