BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD. Vs. RANGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is the case of the claimants that the deceased and others had boarded a cruiser jeep bearing No. KA -37/M -1614 on 1.9.2008 at about 2.15 p.m. When they were travelling from Gunj circle to Chicksugur, the driver of another jeep bearing No. AP -29/U -9922 came and dashed against the vehicle. One Shivappa died and the rest sustained injuries. The LRs. of Shivappa filed MVC No. 626/2008. The injured filed MVC Nos. 698, 699, 700, 701, 702, 703 and 704 of 2008 seeking compensation. All the claim petitions were clubbed together and a common order was passed. The LRs of the deceased pertaining to MVC No. 626/2008 was awarded compensation of Rs. 1.70 lakh along with interest. Questioning the liability hoisted on it to satisfy the award, the insured has filed MFA No. 32052/2010 and the claimants have filed Cross objections No. 1057/2012.

(2.) THE primary contention of the insurer is that the claimants are the brothers and two sisters of the deceased. That there is no dependency on the deceased in any manner whatsoever. That the cause title in the claim petition would show that the brother is aged 45 years. The 2nd claimant sister was 35 years and married and the 3rd claimant was aged 30 years and married. The sisters having married cannot be considered as dependents. That the brother being a major is not entitled to any compensation. She contends that they are not the legal heirs of the deceased and prays for dismissal of the claim petition.

(3.) ON hearing learned counsels', I' am of the considered view that there is no merit in this contention. I have considered the records of the case. The specific case of the claimants is that they were living together along with the deceased. The deceased was contributing his income to maintain the family. Nowhere is it stated that they were independently living and had their own source of income. On the other hand in the written statement filed by the insurer, no contention is taken that the claimants are not entitled for any compensation on the ground that they are majors and they have their own source of income. The only contention taken was that they are not the legal representatives of the deceased. So far as the question of legal heirs is concerned, 1st claimant is the brother, 2nd and 3rd claimants are the sisters. In view of the absence of the contention of the insurer that the claimants were employed and secondly were not dependent, I' am of the considered view that such an argument cannot be accepted. Even in the cross examination, except a feeble suggestion that the claimants were not dependent on the income of the deceased, there is no specific ground on the same. On the other hand the evidence of the claimants would clearly show that they are all living together and are depending upon the income of the deceased. There is nothing to disbelieve the claim set out in the evidence. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited to disbelieve the claim of the claimants. Therefore, the contention that the claimants are not entitled for any relief are ill founded. Moreover the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment specifically held that a major brother could be considered as a Legal representative and was dependent. The Hon'ble Supreme court held the same comes within the purview of the definition of legal representative and therefore, are entitled to compensation. Reliance is placed by the insurer on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in : 2009 ACJ 1298 at para 15. I have considered paragraph No. 15. That too would not come to the aid of the insurer. Therein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that brothers, sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. In the instant case as held herein there is absence of a contention to the said fact in the written statement. Therefore, the said paragraph in the judgment will not come to the aid of the insurer. Following the aforesaid judgment in the case of Ramanbhai I' am of the considered view that the claimants are entitled to maintain the petition seeking for compensation. Consequently, the appeal by the insurer requires to be rejected.