The main legal point established in the judgment is that even major and earning legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to claim compensation under the head of loss of dependency, as interpreted by the Apex Court.

JUDGMENT :

1. Since a common question of law in both the above titled appeals arises from the two awards dated 29.12.2016 passed by a common judgment by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ramban (for short the Tribunal) in two separate claim petitions filed by the appellants/claimants, the same are proposed to be disposed of by this common judgment.

2. In a vehicular accident involving the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. JK19-0772, at Karol Ramban while on its way from Jammu to Gool on 19.10.2011 at 12:30 P.M. due to alleged rash and negligent driving of its driver, as a result of which two passengers Zeba Begum and Shahmal Begum got seriously injured and died. The legal heirs of both the deceased filed two separate claim petitions seeking compensation for the death of the deceased in terms of the Motor Vehicle Act.

3. The Tribunal after full dressed trial of both the claim petitions decided both the petitions vide judgment/award dated 29.12.2016 (hereinafter called 'the impugned award') whereby in case titled “Jamal Din & Ors. v. New India Assurance Company Limited & Ors.”, an amount of Rs. 1,85,000/- was granted as per following details:

Whereas in case of Manzoor Ahmed & Anr. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., an amount of Rs. 3,10,000/-was granted as per following details:

Under conventional heads only. The Tribunal in its judgment/award to the effect of entitlement under the head of loss of dependency in para 25 has observed as under:-

"25. While going through the evidence on record it is sufficiently clear that the claimants in both cases are quite major who are all married and are putting up separately and engaged in different pursuits, thus despite not denied being the legal heirs of deceased are not entitled compensation on the count of dependency, but can be awarded compensation on the other counts, as held by Hon'ble court in above cases......."

4. Aggrieved of both the awards, the appellants/claimants preferred these appeals asserting therein that the Tribunal has not decided the case rightly in accordance with law and has granted meager amount of compensation which cannot be said to be just and fair compensation to which the appellants/claimants were entitled to, in terms of Motor Vehicle Act.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants vehemently argued that meager amount of compensation including an amount of Rs. 50,000/- under 'no fault liability' in both the claim petitions was awarded to the claimants, moreso loss of dependency has been totally refused by the Tribunal in favour of the appellants/claimants holding that they were not dependents on the deceased, being adults and having their own income which is against the law laid down by the Apex Court of the Country. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants further argued that he restricts his arguments to this aspect of the matter mainly besides one more factor that the income of the deceased was required to be stepped up, having regard to future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, to work out the fair compensation.

6. The Apex Court in a case titled "National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender & Ors." reported as (2020) 11 SCC 356 dealing with the subject, as to whether the adult legal representatives having their own income, can be said to the dependents and are entitled to the compensation under the head of loss of dependency. The relevant paras 12 and 15 of the judgment are extracted be