Legal heirs, including married daughters, can claim compensation exceeding the no-fault limits under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, irrespective of dependency status.

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. This is a batch of two appeals filed by the State under Section 173 of the of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1988) assailing the award dated 25.02.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.13, Lucknow in two Claim Petitions bearing No.292 and 293 of 2009 whereby in a death case in Claim Petition No.292 of 2009, a sum of Rs.2,13,200/- alongwith 6% interest per annum has been awarded whereas in Claim Petition No.293 of 2009, a sum of Rs.1,16,400/- alongwith 6% interest per annum has been awarded in favour of the claimant-respondents.

2. Facts indicate that on 24.04.2009, Aftab Husain alongwith his son Tanveer Husain was travelling on a motorcycle to visit their relative. When they reached near Bahad Gram Khushalganj, Mohaan Road, Police Station Kakori, the offending Truck bearing number URA 9406 which was being driven rashly and negligently, hit the motorcycle, as a result, both Aftab Husain and his son Tanveer Husain sustained grievous injuries. They were taken to the Trauma Centre at Medical College, Lucknow where during his treatment Aftab Husain expired on 24.04.2009 while his son Tanveer Husain expired during his treatment on 01.05.2009. Both of them were survived by the claimant-respondent Smt. Tabassum (daughter of the Aftab Husain and sister of Tanveer Husain).

3. It is in the aforesaid context that Tabassum instituted two separate claim petitions, one relating to the death of her father which came to be registered as Claim Petition No.292 of 2009 and the other claim petition in respect of her brother Tanveer Husain which was registered as Claim Petition No.293 of 2009. Both the claim petitions were contested by the State who denied the accident and further alleged that it was the deceased who was not careful while driving the motorcycle and as such on account of their own negligence the accident occurred and not on account of negligence of the Truck bearing number URA 9406.

4. The Tribunal upon exchange of pleadings framed four issues. Parties led their evidence and thereafter the Tribunal after analyzing the evidence recorded a finding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Truck bearing number URA 9406. It also went on to compute the compensation and granted a sum of Rs.2,13,200/- in relation to the death of Aftab Husain and a sum of Rs.1,60,400/- was awarded on account of death of Tanveer Husain. It is the aforesaid two awards which are under challenge before this Court.

5. Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State-appellants has vehemently urged that the amount of compensation granted to the respondents is not just and fair. It was urged that the compensation in terms of motor accident is primarily based on the principal of loss of dependency. In case if the dependency is not proved by the claimants, they are not entitled to the compensation beyond the terms of Section 140 of the Act of 1988.

6. The submission is that since the claimant was the married daughter of Aftab Husain hence she cannot be said to be the dependent on her father. Similarly, for the very same reason the claimant also cannot be treated to be a dependent on her brother. In the given c