RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. TEJAS RAVIKRAN ZOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Insurance Company, who is original respondent No.3 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.232/2012, has challenged the judgment and award dtd. 7/4/2017 passed in the aforesaid claim petition by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhule (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Tribunal"), on the only ground that whether major son and daughter, who are not dependent on the income of deceased, can claim compensation on the ground of loss of dependency.

(2.) It is not disputed that one Sharubala Ravikiran Zol died in an accident which took place on 9/2/2012 when she was going from Dondaicha by-pass road alongwith her husband. It is also not in dispute that initially the motor accident claim petition in respect of deceased Sharubala was filed by her husband Ravikiran and son Tejas. However, during pendency of the claim petition, the husband of deceased died, and therefore, the claim petition was prosecuted by Tejas and Urjja, who are respectively son and daughter of the deceased. It is to be noted here that the learned tribunal awarded total amount of compensation of Rs.42,27,824.00 inclusive of the award under Sec. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the principle of "no fault liability", alongwith interest at the rate of Rs.8.00% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. The learned tribunal computed the amount of compensation as per the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma. There is no dispute about the income of deceased at the time of accident being of Rs.46,623.00 after deduction of income tax and professional tax. The only point raised by the appellant Insurance Company is, as to whether the major son and daughter who are not depending upon the income of deceased, can claim loss of dependency or can file a petition for claiming compensation under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company vehemently argued that the learned tribunal has definitely erred in granting compensation to the respondents/ claimants who were in fact not dependent on the income of deceased as they were residing separately from the deceased at the time of accident and earning their own income. For that purpose learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company heavily relied on the following judgments.