Non-dependent legal representative, such as elder brother of unmarried deceased, entitled to maintain claim under MV Act Section 166 and receive statutory no-fault compensation under Section 140(2) as part of inheritable estate.

JUDGMENT :

SUSHIL KUKREJA, J.

1. The instant appeal is maintained by the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant’) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘MV Act’) against the impugned award dated 15.03.2013, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla, HP, camp at Rohru, in MAC No.13-R/2 of 2007, with a prayer to set aside the same.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, giving rise to the present appeal, are that petitioner-Dharamu (now deceased) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act, whereby he sought compensation on account of death of his brother Shri Dasu. It was averred by the petitioner that on 26.03.2007, when his brother Dasu was present at Samoli Bridge and was about to start his journey to Rohru, due to the rash and negligent driving of bus bearing registration No.HP-10-0888, by its driver (respondent No.3 herein), he was crashed by the said bus, as a result of which, he sustained severe head injury and died. As per the petitioner, at the time of death, the deceased was 52 years old and he was an agriculturist and his monthly income was Rs.4,000/-. He used to reside with the petitioner and support him in his old age. The offending vehicle was owned by one Raj Kumar (respondent No.2 herein) and it was insured with Oriental Insurance Company (appellant herein). Hence, the petitioner sought compensation to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/-.

3. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle, in their joint reply, raised preliminary objections qua maintainability of the claim petition and the highly exaggerated claim of compensation. On merits, it was averred that Dasu Ram was just a beggar, who used to roam in Rohru Bazar and he was not having any income and the petitioner was not dependent upon him.

4. In its reply, respondent No.3/Insurance Company raised the preliminary objections that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence, the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, without valid registration certificate (RC), route permit and fitness certificate. On merits, it was averred that the insurance company was not liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle and the payment of compensation to the petitioner. It was further averred that the amount of compensation, as claimed, was highly exaggerated.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal below framed the following issues on 14.11.2008:-

“1. Whether the Dassu died due to rash and negligent driving of bus No.HP-10-0888 by respondent No.2? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved, what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP
3. Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR-1 & 2
4. Whether the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence?OPR-3
5. Whether the vehicle was being driven in violation of Motor Vehicles Act and policy? OPR-3
6. Whether there did not exist any RC, route permit, fitness in respect of the vehicle in question? OPR-3
7. Relief.”

6. The parties led their evidence and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the claim petition was allowed and the petitioner was granted compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest, which was to be paid by the insurance company (appellant herein).

7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant/insurance company preferred the instant appeal against the impugned award dated 15.03.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal below, with