1. The Insurance Company has felt aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, which granted compensation to the claimant, who was the daughter of the deceased, who died in the vehicular accident on 26.6.1998. The deceased was 45 years old leaving behind her the claimant, who was the only legal representative as defined in Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. The contention is that the claimant is a married daughter and not dependent on the deceased and, therefore, no compensation could have been awarded in M.A.C.P. No. 104 of 2002, vide order dated 26.5.2007.

3. Brief facts are that on the date of accident, i.e., 26.6.1998 at about 2:00 to 3:00 pm, when the deceased was coming back with her son-in-law, Om Prakash Chaurasia, a vehicle from the opposite direction bearing No. WB12A-1255, was driving rashly and negligently dashed her. The deceased succumbed to her injuries when she was taken to the hospital. The respondent No. 1 was summoned but despite summons being served, the opponent No. 1, namely Mangaldev Prasad, did not appear before the Tribunal and, therefore, the matter was conducted against him. In light of the judgment of the Apex Court in UPSRTC vs. Mamta, reported in AIR 1996 SC 948, all the issued raised in the appeal have to be decided and, therefore, the Tribunal framed all the four issued and held all of them against the owner and the Insurance Company. None appeared for the Insurance Company. The appellant examined as P.W.-1, namely, Seema Chaurasia and P.W.-2 was Sandeep Kumar Chaurasia.

4. It is submitted the married daughter is entitled for compensation only under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, i.e. only limited to Rs. 50,000/- as being not dependent. It is further pleaded that the multiplier was on the higher side.

5. Shri S.D. Ojha appearing for the respondent has relied on the judgment of this Court dated 9.11.2016, reported in F.A.F.O. No. 3174 of 2015 (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Irfan and 5 others) and submitted that in light of latest judgment of Apex Court as well as judgment of this Court, the ground that married daughter is not entitled, cannot be sustained.

6. In that view of the matter, the appeal requires to be decided. The grounds of appeal raised, more particularly, the first ground is regarding the claimant, who was a married daughter and was not dependant upon the deceased and, therefore, he was not entitled to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In the alternative reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UPSRTC VS. Trilok Chand and others, reported in 1996 (2) TAC 286 holding that the aspect of dependency is crucial for determining the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and the latest Supreme Court decision reported in 2007 (2) TAC431-Smt. Manjuri Bera vs. Oriental Insurance Co. and another.

7. The next ground, raised, is that the Tribunal erred in holding the Insurance Company liable and illegally admitted the photocopy of the driving licence without any further proof.

8. The third issue is regarding the compensation and the multiplier awarded by the Tribunal it has submitted that the deceased being 50 years of age multiplier of 13, could not have been granted and nothing more than Rs. 50,000/- should have been awarded by the Tribunal.

9. It would be necessary to advert to provisions of Sections 140, 160 and 168 of Act, 1988 as learned counsel has taken us through judgment in Manjuri Bera (Smt) Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 643, to contend that nothing more than mentioned as fixed compensation under Section 140 of Act, 1988 was to be awarded to claimants.

10. Principles for grant of compensation under Section 166 are based on provision of Section 168 of Act, 1988 also. Tribunal has relied on decision of this Court in Mohd. Yunus and Adarsh Vs. Raies and others, 2015(2) TAC, 526 (Alld) and has held that the word 'dependent' is not found in the Act. Decision of Apex Court relied by learned counsel for claim