The intent behind the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act is to provide succor to the persons who are dependent upon the deceased victim.

JUDGMENT :

PUNEET GUPTA, J.

1. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udhampur while deciding the claim petition filed by the appellant-claimant herein decided the issue of alleged rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle in the accident in favour of the appellant on the basis of the evidence that came on record during the proceedings before the Tribunal. The Tribunal while deciding Issue No. 2 regarding the entitlement of the appellant herein for compensation on account of the dependency of the appellant herein qua the deceased who was the daughter of the claimant held the issue against the appellant herein on the ground that the appellant cannot be said to be the dependent upon the deceased in view of what has come on record.

2. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant has argued that the learned Tribunal has taken a very microscopic view of the matter thereby disentitling the appellant from claiming compensation in the claim petition. The evidence on record was sufficient to hold that the appellant was dependent upon the earning of the deceased daughter.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the appellant cannot be said to be dependant of the deceased daughter in view of the evidence that came on record. There was not a whisper of the dependency factor in the evidence led by the claimant before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of the appellant in the claim petition.

4. The appellant is the legal heir of the deceased daughter is not in dispute.

5. The learned counsels for the parties have taken the court through the evidence that has come on record in order to make out their respective case.

6. The record of the Tribunal is before the court.

7. It cannot be disputed that the person will not be entitled to compensation only on being the legal heir of the deceased unless other factors entitle such legal heir for compensation.

8. The learned Tribunal while giving its finding on the issue in hand has held that the evidence of the claimant failed to justify his dependency upon the deceased daughter. The Tribunal held that the petitioner in the claim petition did not claim that he was dependent upon the deceased or entitled to compensation on account of loss of dependency. The Tribunal has referred to the statement of the petitioner wherein he has deposed that the deceased used to pay the petitioner Rs. 5,000/- per month and she was living with him. The claimant also stated in the statement that he has three daughters and one son and no one except the deceased was employed. It is in the context of this statement of the petitioner that the Tribunal did not find the dependency factor in favour of the claimant.

9. The court has gone through the claim petition filed by the appellant before the Tribunal. The petition claims compensation on account of death of the deceased under different heads. There can be no denying of the fact that when one goes through the averments of the claim petition there is no plea raised in the petition specifically that the petitioner was dependent upon the earning of the deceased daughter. The petition, however, speaks of the deceased being serving in the police department as constable at the time of the accident and the mental shock and agony suffered by the petitioner and his family due to the tragic death of the deceased, who was due to get married in December, 2006. The purpose of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act is to provide succour to the persons who are dependent upon the deceased victim who has lost the life in an unfortunate accident. The finer elements of the pleadings which are required to be mentioned in proceedings like the suit if not incorporated in a claim petition filed under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act will not necessarily prove fatal for the claimant. The sum and substance of the claim petition should be gauged and not the phrasing of the claim petition i