PAPPU MEHTAR Vs. SUBASH PRASAD YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.1.1998 passed by the then Additional District Judge-cum-3rd Additional Claims Tribunal, Bhagalpur in Claim Case No. 37 of 1992 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim case but without cost.

(2.) The admitted position remains that the younger brother of the appellant, namely, Prem Mehtar died in a motor accident and the claim case was filed by the appellant seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000. It was also an admitted fact that the deceased was aged about 17 years and he was earning by doing private work as a sweeper and it is also in evidence that as per his contribution, his sister was married 10 years ago from the date of the accident. Regarding compensation, the learned Tribunal held that accident occurred due to negligence of the driver and the vehicle concerned was at the relevant time insured with the respondent No. 2, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The income of the deceased was also assessed and dependency was also calculated but it was held that as there was no evidence that the claimant was in any way dependent on the deceased, as such he was not in a position to get any compensation.

(3.) The learned advocate appearing for and on behalf of the claimant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error of law in holding that compensation can be granted only in respect of dependant persons. He has failed or rather ignored the criteria of compensation when the same relates to loss of consortium, shock and the loss which had been ignored by the claimant. Learned advocate has referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Murugesh v. M. Palappa, 1999 ACJ 961 (SC), wherein it was found that a minor boy died of accident due to negligence of the driver and compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000 was granted to the parents as the deceased died at the prime of his age and had a lot of expectations from the life. Here in the present case parents are not the claimants because it is an admitted fact that the deceased died issueless having been unmarried and that he was parentless too. The claimant-appellant is his elder brother. It is there in the evidence, as per the impugned judgment that they were living together. It is not known or there is no evidence to the effect that how much he was contributing to the family. When joint family was there then he must have been contributing something to the family. When from the fact it appears that he had contributed as a whole towards the expenses of the marriage of his sister. But then the loss of consortium, shock, loss to the family due to premature death must have been considered by the learned Tribunal in awarding compensation but not dismissing the case as a whole. The question of dependency does not come in but on the following heads definitely the appellant- claimant is entitled to compensation: <FRM> (1) Loss of consortium Rs. 2,500 (2) Shock due to premature death Rs. 2,500 (3) Expenses towards funeral Rs. 2,000 (4) Lump sum compensation towards contribution to the joint family Total Rs. 15,000 Rs. 22,000 </FRM> Learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the owner of the vehicle has no objection in granting of some compensation to the claimant but his submission is that he should not be burdened as the vehicle in question has already been held to be insured with respondent No. 2 at the relevant time of accident.