GAINDA RAM Vs. MAYA RAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The driver and owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.HR-02A-3506 filed the instant appeal against award dtd. 3/9/2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (for short, 'the Tribunal') whereby respondents No.1 and 2 were awarded compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realisation on account of death of their brother Om Parkash, unmarried and issueless in a motor vehicular accident while accepting the claim petition of the respondents filed under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act').

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that both the respondents were major. They, being major and brother of the deceased Om Parkash, were not dependant upon him. Respondent No.1-Maya Ram as PW2 admitted before the police in his statement under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C (Ex.R2) that he was Sarpanch of village, whereas respondent No.2 never appeared in the witness box before the Tribunal, claiming his dependency upon deceased Om Parkash. Therefore, learned Tribunal ought to have dismissed claim petition, observing that the claimants were not dependant upon deceased Om Parkash. But, it has illegally awarded compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh to the claimant. In support of his argument, she relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Mundian Carriers (India) vs. Kamal Kumar and others, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 27.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, refuting the above submissions, contends that in Sec. 166(1)(c) of the Act words 'legal heirs' are used and not "dependants". Therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned award. Even, as per Sec. 110 A of the Act, legal heirs of the deceased, who dies in a motor vehicular accident, are held entitled to compensation. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decisions of this Court in Gurmail Singh vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala, 2003 ACJ 225, and Girdhari Lal vs. Radhey Shyam and others, 1994(1) ACJ 168. He has also relied upon a decision of Allahabad High Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Naresh Chandra Agrawal and others, 2000(39) ALR 192. He further contends that even, if it is presumed that respondents/claimants were not dependants upon deceased-Om Parkash, in that eventuality 10% of the total compensation ought to have been granted to them.