The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for cogent evidence to establish dependency for entitlement to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company challenging the Award dated 22.2.2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Petition MACT case No.279 of 2012, filed by the claimant/respondent no.1 herein, u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereby compensation of Rs. 5.65 lacs has been awarded to respondent no.1/ claimant for the death of deceased Nand Lai. Claimant is the brother of deceased Nand Lai.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on appraisal of the pleadings and evidence led before it, concluded that the deceased Nand Lai, brother of respondent no.1 had died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 24.10.2012 due to rash negligent driving of Mahindra and Mahindra Maxi Truck bearing registration No. HR-39-B-5699 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), being driven by respondent no.2 herein, and owned by respondent no.3. Proforma Respondents no. 4 and 5 herein, are the other brothers of deceased Nand Lal, who have given up their claim in respect of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Vide impugned Award, appellant, and respondents no. 2 and 3 were jointly and severally were held liable to pay the compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing claim petition till realization.

3. Vide order dated 11.1.2016 this Court had directed that 50% of the compensation be released to the claimant without any security, and balance 50% of the awarded amount has still not been released.

4. It is inter alia, submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company that the claimant is the brother of the deceased and, therefore, cannot be taken as a ‘dependent’ as understood in legal parlance, and is therefore, not entitled to any compensation. It is submitted that as per para 15 of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others v Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, appellant is not entitled to compensation as his dependency upon deceased has not been established on record.

5. It is further submitted that the deceased was a bachelor. He was 38 years of age at the time of his death as per his Post Mortem Report Ex.P2. It is submitted that deceased being a self-employed labourer and not in a permanent salaried job, future prospects @ 40% ought to have been granted, whereas the learned Tribunal has incorrectly granted future prospects @ 50%.

6. It is further stated that the ld. Tribunal has erroneously assessed income of the deceased as Rs. 4000/- per month without there being any proof of the same.

7. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant that the learned Tribunal has recorded the contention of the claimant in para 21 of the impugned Award as follows:-

“21. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner contended although the deceased Nand Lai was a bachelor but he was contributing his entire income to the welfare of his brother and his family with whom he was residing. Moreover, petitioner Jaswant is younger brother of deceased Nand Lai and he and his family was more dependent upon the income of deceased Nand Lai. In support of his contention learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon case law titled Susheel Kumar Ezkiel and another versus U. Rajasehar and another, 2013 ACJ 839 (AP”).

8. Learned counsel also refers to para 25 of the impugned Award wherein learned Tribunal has recorded that the respondents led no evidence to rebut the evidence led by the claimant in support of his contentions. It is submitted that therefore, the dependency of the claimant on the deceased is established.

9. Learned counsel relies upon judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Susheel Kumar Ezkiel v U. Rajasekhar, Law Finder doc Id # 423961, to submit that in the said case also in similar circumstances where the deceased was a bachelor and contributing his entire income to the welfare of the fa