Brothers, sisters, and brother's children are entitled to compensation for the death of the bread-winner in a motor accident, even if they are not dependents under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855.

A.G. Qureshi, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 21.4.1981, passed by the Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, in Claim Case No. 47 of 1979, whereby the appellants have been held to be disentitled to get any compensation for the death of their brother.

2. The facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the appellants along with one Krishna Bai had filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal for getting compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/- for the death of Prahlad, who is the son of Krishna Bai and the brother of the present appellants, who allegedly died in a motor accident on 12.12.1978. The respondent No. 1 is the owner of car No. RJO 1094 and respondent No. 2 is the driver of the aforesaid vehicle and on the relevant date it was insured with the insurance company, respondent No.

3. According to the claimants Prahlad, who was the son of claimant No. 1 and brother of claimant Nos. 2 and 3, was serving in a transport company and getting a salary of Rs. 250/- per month and an allowance of Rs. 100/- per month. The claimant No. 2, i.e., appellant No. 2 was not doing any work because of his weak eyesight and as such the three claimants were dependent on the deceased.

On 12.12.1978 at about 5 p.m. when the deceased Prahlad was going on M.G. Road towards Palasia on a Lambretta scooter No. MPN 1094, driving it cautiously, the respondent No. 1 while driving car No. RJO 1094 rashly and negligently dashed against the scooter due to which Prahlad received injuries and he later on succumbed to those injuries. The car was at such a speed that it stopped only at a distance of 50 feet. At the time of the accident Prahlad was 24 years of age and was in sound health and would have survived for atleast 40 years more. Therefore, a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was claimed.

3. The claim was resisted by the respondents on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the car and the deceased was author of his own misfortune. However, the learned Tribunal held that the accident resulted due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the driver of the car and due to the accident Prahlad received injuries resulting in his death. It also held that although the present appellants, who were claimant Nos. 2 and. 3, are the sister and brother respectively of the deceased and were dependent on him, still according to law they are not entitled to get any compensation.

The court further was of the view that the claimant No. 1, the mother of the deceased, was entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 18,750/-. Accordingly an award was given in favour of claimant No. 1 only with interest and costs. The claim of the appellants was dismissed. Hence this appeal.

4. Claimant No. 1, the mother of the deceased, Krishna Bai, has not filed any appeal and she is satisfied with the award. There is no cross-objection on behalf of the respondents challenging the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was caused due to the negligent driving of respondent No. 2.

5. Now, before me, it is not in dispute that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of car No. RJO 1094 driven by respondent No. 2 and at the relevant time it was owned by respondent No. 1 and insured by respondent No. 3. The only grievance of the appellants is that the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation at the lower side and has applied a wrong multiplier ignoring the age of the deceased, his future prospects and longevity. It has also been argued by Mr. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellants, that the Tribunal has also wrongly held that the income of the deceased was not Rs. 350/- per month, but only Rs. 250/- per month. The deduction on account of lump sum payment has also been wrongly made after applying the multiplier. The Tribunal has also erred in holding that the present appellants being sister and brother of the deceased were not entitled to get the compensation for the death of deceased Prahlad.