JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the award and decree dated 04.02.2003 passed in O.P.No.30 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) at Nizamabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), the claimant filed M.A.C.M.A.No.3575 of 2005 and the Insurance Company filed M.A.C.M.A.No.490 of 2009.

2. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount Rs.2,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased Kuna Sathish in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 31.05.2000. The case of the claimant is that he is the brother of the deceased. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 8 years and earning an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal, basing on the plea taken by the Insurance Company, has dealt with the issue whether the brother of the deceased is dependant to maintain claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, ‘the Act’). The Tribunal relying on clause (11) of Section 2 of C.P.C. has come to the conclusion that the claimant, who is the brother of the deceased, can maintain an application, granted compensation of Rs.5,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection and Rs.5,000/- was also granted towards funeral expenses and an amount of Rs.50,000/- is granted under non-pecuniary damages, in all the Tribunal has awarded compensation of an amount of Rs.60,000/-.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto, (2023) 1 SCC 204, in case of a boy of 12 years has granted an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the same and ought to have granted the said compensation.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the brother of the deceased is aged about 19 years and the deceased was 8 years old, as such, the claimant cannot be considered as dependant of the deceased and he is not entitled for any amount. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited, Warangal v. Samala Agaiah and another, 2012 (5) ALD 322, wherein the claim petition was filed by the younger brother of the deceased and this Court while relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Smt. Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2007 (3) ALD 55 (SC), has held that the younger brother of the deceased is entitled for compensation as legal representative, but the said compensation would be towards loss of estate and not towards loss of dependency. Further, it is also held that that the claimant being the younger brother of the deceased though not dependant on him, is entitled to receive the compensation under ‘no fault liability’ in terms of Section 140 of the Act and nothing more. Relying on the said judgment, learned counsel submits that the brother is not entitled for any compensation as he is not a dependant.

5. In response to the same learned counsel for the claimant submits that though he is not dependant, still he is entitled for the compensation.

6. Heard learned counsel on either side. Perused the entire material on record.

7. Similar issue fell for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in Dr.Gangaraju Sowmini v. Alavala Sudhakar Reddy and Another, 2016 (2) TN MAC 20 (FB) (Hrd.). A reference was made to Full Bench Court whether in view of the conflicting opinions rendered by Two different Division Benches in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. P.Satyavathamma, 2010 (3) ALT 433 and Vanguard Insurance Company Limited v. Chellu Hanumantha Rao, 1975 ACJ 344, whether non-dependant heir of the deceased, who died in a motor accident, is entitled to lay claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Act, where there are no other dependant legal heirs claiming compensation. The Full Bench has discussed at length Sections 140, 163-A, 165 and 166 of the Act and the judgments of the Apex Court in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Anot