UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. RAMAWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant in this appeal as well as First Appeal From Order No. 790 of 2001 which are being tagged since both of them arise out of same accident in which the mother as well as father of the claimant -respondent No. 1 Ramawati had died and proceed to consider them on the question of their admission.

(2.) THREE -fold contentions have been made by Mr. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant for admitting these appeals: (i) since the claimant was a married daughter of the deceased, therefore, she was not entitled to file the claim petition, which was wrongly entertained and allowed by the impugned judgment; (ii) since the claimant was a married daughter, therefore, also it could not be said that she was dependent on her deceased parents; (iii) no proof of income of the deceased was furnished by the claimant.

(3.) UNDER Section 166(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, an application for compensation can be filed by all or any of the legal representative of the deceased. Apparently the claimant is the daughter of her deceased parents and thereby a legal representative. The statute in this regard is crystal clear and does not put us in any doubt that for maintaining the application for compensation such a claimant has to be dependent as well. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal has taken into account the evidence of the claimant in regard to income of her deceased parents who has also taken into account the theory of multiplier.