The entitlement to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is not contingent on dependency, and the amount of compensation cannot be less than that payable under Section 163A of the Act.

This appeal by the claimant is directed against the award dated 31.05.2011 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Court No.3, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (MAC) 373 of 2009, whereby he dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant solely on the ground that since she was a married sister of the deceased she was not entitled to any compensation.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that deceased Biswajit Das, who was a bachelor sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident involving Canter Truck No.TR-01-E-1849 and Bus No.TRS-0702. The Canter Truck was insured with the National Insurance Company and the bus was insured with the New India Assurance Company. The claimant who is the married sister of the deceased filed the claim petition in which she also arrayed as proforma respondents her sisters Smt. Soma Dhar, Smt. Kalpana Bardhan and Smt. Anjali Chanda all of whom are also married. The learned Tribunal held that the claimant has not proved the survival certificate on record and therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that the claimants are the only legal heirs of the deceased. He further held since none of the sisters were dependent on the deceased, they were not entitled to any compensation.

3. On both counts, the learned Tribunal was absolutely wrong. The Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is an officer of the rank of District Judge. It is shocking that such an officer should say that because survival certificate has not been produced he cannot ascertain who are the legal heirs. In civil proceedings he has to decide who are the legal heirs, on the basis of the evidence led before him and therefore, I am of the considered view that this finding of the learned Tribunal is wrong.

4. With regard to lack of dependency, reference may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Manjuri Bera (Smt) vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another : (2007) 10 SCC 643, wherein the Apex Court held as follows:-

“13. There are several factors which have to be noted. The liability under Section 140 of the Act does not cease because there is absence of dependency. The right to file a claim application has to be considered in the background of right to entitlement. While assessing the quantum, the multiplier system is applied because of deprivation of dependency. In other words, multiplier is a measure. There are three stages while assessing the question of entitlement. Firstly, the liability of the person who is liable and the person who is to indemnify the liability, if any. Next is the quantification and Section 166 is primarily in the nature of recovery proceedings. As noted above, liability in terms of Section 140 of the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency.

14. Section 165 of the Act also throws some light on the controversy. The Explanation includes the liability under Sections 140 and 163-A.

15. Judged in that background where a legal representative who is not dependant files an application for compensation, the quantum cannot be less than the liability referable to Section 140 of the Act. Therefore, even if there is no loss of dependency the claimant if he or she is a legal representative will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall be not less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There will be no order as to costs. We record our appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Shri Jayant Bhushan, the learned Amicus Curiae.”

5. The Apex Court held that even if the legal heirs, who filed the claim petition were not dependants, they could not be awarded compensation less than that payable under Section 140 of the Act. The judgment of the Apex Court was rendered in the context of Section 166 and 140, I am of the view that in fact the payment which is payable to the claimants cannot be less than that payable under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. It would be a travesty of justice i