UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. POONGAVANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a motor accident which occurred on 24.8.2009, the brother of the respondents-claimants, aged about 55 years, said to have been engaged as a mason, died. Married brothers and sisters claimed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000. Though the appellant insurance company has resisted the manner of accident and also objected to the maintainability of the claim petition, on the ground that claimants are neither legal representatives of the de ceased nor his dependants and, therefore, the claim for compensation is not main tainable under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Claims Tribunal rejected the said contentions. Fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000 and deducting V3rd for his personal and living expenses and after applying '8' multiplier to the age of the deceased, the Tribunal computed the dependency compensation at Rs. 1,92,000. In addition to the above, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 8,000 for funeral expenses and transportation and Rs. 500 for damage to clothes. Altogether, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,00,000 to the respondents-claimants, who are mar ried brothers and sisters.

(2.) The compensation awarded is as sailed on the grounds that the claimants, married brothers and sisters, are not enti tled only to claim any compensation as dependants and at best, they are entitled to claim under 'no fault liability' under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(3.) The issue as to whether a brother and sister of the deceased can maintain a claim petition for compensation has been con sidered by this court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rangamal,2011 AAC 1168and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Trans. Corpn. v. Shanthi,2010 CLJ 374 (Madras). In the former case, it was the contention of appellant insurance company that brother/sister is entitled to claim com pensation only under 'no fault liability'. Following the decisions of the Apex Court in Gujarat State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, 1987 ACJ 561; Vidya Dhar Dubey v. U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn., 1997 ACJ 1388); Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Naresh Chandra Agrawal, 2000 ACJ 931; Govinda Samy v. Ravi, 2004 ACJ 754; Kishan Lal v. Bharosi Lal, 2002 ACJ 1750); Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Trans. Corpn. v. K.S. Venkataramappa, 2003 ACJ 597 ); New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashwin Vrajlal Rajgor, 2005 ACJ 1618); A. Manavalagan v. A. Krishnamurthy, 2005 ACJ 992), this court held that brother and sister of the deceased are entitled to maintain a claim for loss to estate and accordingly, rejected the said contention.