Legal heirs are entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act regardless of their dependency status at the time of the accident.

JUDGMENT

Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.

Heard Sri. Nigmendra Shukla, learned counsel for claimantsappellants and Sri. Ajay Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. No one is present for respondent no.1. Perused the record.

2. This FAFO has been filed by the appellants for enhancement of compensation against the judgment and award dated 14.1.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Bulandshahr in MACP No. 85 of 2003(Km. Radhika Singh and others v. Rajeev Gupta and another), by which compensation of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith 7% interest has been awarded in favour of claimants-appellants.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that very meagre amount of compensation has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 50,000/- on the ground that claimant no. 1 is married daughter of the deceased and claimant no.2 is major son of the deceased and they are not entitled for any compensation. It is further submitted that admittedly, the claimant no.1 Radhika Singh was unmarried at the time of death of her mother in the road accident and the Claims Tribunal has committed gross illegality in awarding only Rs. 50,000/-. The claim of the appellants was denied by the claims Tribunal only on the ground that they are not dependent on the income of the deceased whereas under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, the legal heirs of deceased are entitled for compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kirti and another v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in 2021 (2) SCC 166. Relevant paragraph 10' is quoted herein below:-

"10. We have thoughtfully considered the rival submissions. It cannot be disputed that at the time of death, there in fact were four dependents of the deceased and not three. The subsequent death of the deceased's dependent mother ought not to be a reason for reduction of motor accident compensation. Claims and legal liabilities crystallise at the time of the accident itself, and changes post thereto ought not to ordinarily affect pending proceedings. Just like how appellant-claimants cannot rely upon subsequent increases in minimum wages, the respondent insurer too cannot seek benefit of the subsequent death of a dependent during the pendency of legal proceedings. Similarly, any concession in law made in this regard by either counsel would not bind the parties, as it is legally settled that advocates cannot throw away legal rights or enter into arrangements contrary to law (Director of Elementary Education v. Pramod Kumar Sahoo, (2019)10 SCC 674]."

4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that in the case of Laxmi Devi & Others v. Mohammad Tabbar & Another reported in 2008 (2) T.A.C. 394 (S.C.) the Hon'ble Apex Court has provided Rs. 3000/- per month as notional income, where there was no proof of income. The Claimants are also entitled for 10% future prospects, as the age of the deceased was 54 years at the time of accident.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Insurance Company has placed reliance upon judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manjuri Bera(Smt.) v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another reported in (2007) 10 SCC 643 and in the case case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Anand Pal and others reported in 2024 (1) TAC 3(SC). He submits that the claimants were not dependent upon the deceased and therefore they are not entitled for any compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

6. Considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for he parties and perused the record.

7. Admittedly, at the time of filing claim petition the claimant no.1 Km. Radhika Singh was unmarried. In view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kirti (supra) the status of claimant at the time of accident would be seen. The case law cited by learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company are n