Compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act requires independent proof of financial dependency; however, legal representatives remain entitled to statutory no-fault liability compensation under Section 140 even in the absence of such proof.

Judgment on Board

1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants against the award dated 23.01.2016 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.), in MACT Claim Case No. 112/2014, whereby a total compensation of Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded to the claimants under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of the death of deceased Bharat Lal Sahu, along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of application till realization, fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company (non-applicant No. 3).

2. As per the averments made in the claim petition, on 20.01.2012 at about 6:00 a.m., the deceased, Bharat Lal, was driving vehicle No. W.B.-11-B-4422 and proceeding from Nagpur towards Kolkata on the National Highway. When he reached near Taj Farm House, Satlajtarai, the offending vehicle bearing No. C.G.-04-ZC-1790, driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the vehicle of the deceased, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. At the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No. 2, Bhagwat Prasad Pandey, and was insured with non-applicant No. 3, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited.

3. Upon the claim petition being filed by the claimants, i.e., the brothers of the deceased, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs. 75,45,000/-, inter alia, stating that at the time of the accident the deceased was about 22 years of age and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month by working as a driver, the Tribunal, after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, passed the award as mentioned above.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in restricting the compensation to Rs.50,000/- and has failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record with regard to the income of the deceased and the dependency of the claimants. He further submits that the claimants, being the brothers of the deceased, were dependent upon his income and therefore, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is grossly inadequate and on the lower side. He also submits that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as a driver and, even if his income is assessed on the basis of the minimum wages prevailing on the date of the accident, i.e., 20.01.2012, the same ought to have been taken at Rs.4,277/- per month. He also submits that the claimants are entitled to just and reasonable compensation under the conventional heads as well. Lastly, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another , reported in (1987) 3 SCC 234.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3/Insurance Company submits that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company at the time of accident and that no separate appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the impugned award. He further submits that at the time of accident, the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants, who are his adult brothers, cannot be said to be dependents upon the income of the deceased. He further submits that the parents of the deceased had already passed away and the brothers of the deceased were not financially dependent on him. He also submits that two of the claimants, namely, Ramjeet and Laxman, are married and, therefore,