JUDGMENT :

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

1. The appeal is directed against the award dated 23.03.2021 made in MCOP No.1076 of 2016, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perambalur.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that, on 20.07.2016, the deceased Mustafa was riding his motor cycle bearing Registration No. TN 02 M 6454 from north towards south in Chennai to Trichy NH 45 Road and at that time, a lorry bearing Registration Number TN 31 C 9086, belonging to the first respondent, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against his motor cycle, as a result of which, the deceased was thrown out of the vehicle and sustained multiple grievous injuries. The deceased was given first aid in the Govt. Hospital, Perambalur, and was then taken to Government Hospital, Trichy, for further treatment, where he died on 22.07.2016.

3. On the aforesaid grounds, the claimants of the deceased have filed the Claim Petition before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation for the death of the deceased. They have claimed various amounts under different heads and in all claimed a total sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation.

4. Their claim was opposed by the 2^nd respondent Insurance Company. The learned Tribunal, after trying the issues, partly allowed the claim of the claimants and awarded a sum of Rs.4,79,500/- as compensation. Feeling the sum awarded to them was insufficient, this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been filed by the appellants/claimants.

5. According to the learned counsel for the claimants, though the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.20,000/-, the Tribunal has fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased only at Rs.6,500/-, which is very meagre and the same has to be enhanced. He further submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded loss of consortium to the claimants 2 to 5, which they are entitled for. Hence, prayed for enhancement of the award passed by the Tribunal.

6. The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company has submitted that the accident had not been caused due to negligence of the 1^st respondent’s driver, therefore, respondents are not liable to pay any compensation to the appellants. He would further submit that the Tribunal had deducted ¼ towards the personal expenses of the deceased, which is incorrect for the reason that the claimants 2 to 5 are not dependants of the deceased, since they are married and were not living with the deceased. There is no evidence on record to show that the claimants 2 to 5 were depending on the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal erroneously adopted ¼ towards the personal expenses of the deceased under the impugned award. He would submit that mere status of legal representative alone is not sufficient to make a claim. The basis for entitlement for compensation is dependency. If a legal representative is not a dependant of the deceased, he is not entitled for compensation for loss of dependency. To support of his contentions he has relied on the following Judgments:

1. Judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated 29.09.2021 made in CMA No.893 of 2021

2. Judgment of this Court dated 29.04.2021 made in CMA No.2679 of 2016.

3. Judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated 26.03.2021 made in CMA No.538 of 2021

4. 2021 (2) TNMAC 169 DB (Saroja vs. Parvathy & others)

5. 2025 INSC 675 (Deep Shikha & others vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.)

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that, though the claimants 2 to 5 are married, they were depending on the deceased and there is no reason to exclude them from compensation. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly deducted ¼ towards the personal expenses of the deceased, which warrants any interference by this Court.

8. The findings of the learned Tribunal regarding the involvement of the vehicle in question, the negligence of the respondent No.1, driver of the vehicle, and the deceased having sustained fatal inju