JUDGMENT :

1. Case called out in revised reading of the list.

2. No one is present for respondent no.3 despite sufficient service vide order dated 25.7.2014.

3. The present first appeal from order has been filed by appellant against impugned judgment and award dated 16.11.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court, Court No.1, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.90 of 2006 (Mangey Ram and another Vs. Sri Pratap Singh and another), by which claim petition has been allowed granting a compensation of Rs.4,12,500/-to claimants-respondents no.1 & 2 with interest @ 6% per annum against the owner of truck with direction for making payment by insurer with recovery rights.

4. The brief facts relating to the case are that Claim Petition No.90 of 2006 was filed by claimants-respondents no.1 & 2 Mangey Ram and Sri Kishan Pal with the allegations that their brother Gajendra Singh aged about 28 years was working as helper/second driver on truck in question of Pratap Singh, respondent no.3 and was being paid Rs.3,200/- per month and since he was bachelor his brothers-claimants were dependent on his income. After filing of written statement by owner and insurer, on parties' pleadings, five issues were framed by Tribunal. Issue no.1 was decided in affirmative holding that it is proved from the evidence on record that death of Gajendra Singh did take place by use of offending truck in question. On issue no.2 it found that at the time of accident truck in question was validly insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. On issue no.3 it found that truck driver was not holding a valid driving license for driving offending vehicle and on issue no.4 that truck was being plied without valid permit and fitness. On issue no.5 Tribunal held that claimants-respondents no.1 & 2 are entitled to get compensation of Rs.4,12,500/-with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of petition till date of judgment.

5. Heard Sri S.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for appellant, Sri S.D. Ojha, learned counsel for claimants-respondents and perused the record as well as lower court record.

6. Learned counsel for appellant Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. submitted that undisputedly deceased was 28 years old bachelor brother of claimants-respondents, who are married brothers aged about 34 & 26 years respectively and so they may not be considered to be dependent on income of deceased; that learned trial court has acted wrongly and incorrectly in awarding compensation to claimants-respondents without considering that they were not dependent on deceased. In support of his arguments he has paid reliance on the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Smt. Manjuri Bera Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another, 2007 (2) T.A.C. 431 (S.C.) and Mrs. Hafizun Begum Vs. Md. Ikram Heque and others, 2007 (4) T.A.C. 1 (S.C.), and contended that in Full Bench judgment of Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (16) SCC (FB) 680, also it has been observed that married brothers may not be dependents on their bachelor brother. No other point arises or was raised by learned counsel for appellant in this appeal.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for claimants-respondents supported the impugned award and contended that appellant has no locus standi to file appeal as by the impugned award he has been given right to recover from the owner of vehicle and may not be considered to be aggrieved by impugned award; that in any case only owner of offending vehicle may be considered aggrieved party who has not preferred any appeal; that it is wrong to say that married brothers of deceased may not be dependents on the income of the bachelor brother, deceased; that Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident to the nature specified in sub section 1 of Section 165 may be made, where death has resulted fr