Legal representatives can claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act regardless of financial dependency.

JUDGMENT

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.34 of 2016, dated 26.09.2023, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Dindigul.

2. The first respondent/claimant, claiming to the brother of the deceased Gowthaman, laid the claim application seeking compensation for the death of his brother, consequent to an accident occurred on 11.11.2015, alleging that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Taurus lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-28-AD-9499 owned by the second respondent and insured with the appellant/Insurance Company and that therefore, they are liable to pay compensation.

3. The second respondent owner of the vehicle had remained ex-parte. The appellant/insurer filed a counter statement raising objections.

4.During trial, the first respondent claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and examined two more witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively and exhibited six documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. The appellant/insurer adduced neither oral nor documentary evidence.

5.The learned trail Judge, upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, has passed the impugned order, dated 26.09.2023, holding that the second respondent's driver was responsible for the accident, directed the appellant/insurer to pay compensation of Rs.10,93,400/- with interest at 7.5% per annum and costs. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the insurer has preferred the present appeal.

6. The only ground canvassed in the appeal is that the first respondent/claimant is only the elder brother of the deceased and is not a dependant on the deceased and as such, he is not entitled to claim compensation.

7.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that even assuming for argument sake that the claimant, being the brother of the deceased, in the capacity of legal representative, is not entitled to claim compensation for loss of dependency, they may at best, can claim compensation for loss of love and affection.

8. It is not in dispute that the claimant is none other than the elder brother of the deceased. It is the specific case of the claimant that after losing their parents, himself and the deceased's brother Gowthaman were living together and were supporting each other. But according to the appellant, the claimant as well as the deceased were living separately and more importantly, the claimant is working in a Software Company at Chennai, whereas the deceased was residing with his aunt at Natham and that since the claimant is not dependant on the income of the deceased, he is not entitled for the claim.

9.The learned counsel for the appellant/insurer would rely on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, Rajapalayam Vs. Chockalingam (died) and others in C.M.A(MD)No.116 of 2020, dated 27.01.2020, wherein the Division Bench by referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs. Anand Pal and Others (Civil Appeal No.7920 of 2023 arising out of SLP (civil) No.7805 of 2022) dated 04.12.2023 reported in 2024 ACJ 6, has held that the claimants therein, who are the brothers of the deceased are only entitled to get compensation towards loss of love and affection and rejected the claim for compensation under the head of loss of dependency and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder :

“19.Any adult can claim compensation for the death of his elder or younger brother. However, unless dependency is proved, compensation cannot be allowed,