NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. NARAIN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, National Insurance Company Ltd., is aggrieved by the award dt. 26.09.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajgarh, District Alwar whereby the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs. 3,30,000/ - alongwith an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition, i.e. 10.05.2013, to the claimants -respondents No. 1 and 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 13.04.2013 Smt. Prabhati Devi, the mother of the claimants -respondents No. 1 and 2, was returning to her home alongwith her goats. When she reached at Alwar -Sikandra Mega Highway, she was hit by a Maruti Van bearing Registration No. RJ02 -UA -2798, being driven rashly and negligently, by the respondent No. 3, Mukesh Kumar Sharma. On account of serious injuries sustained by her, Smt. Prabhati Devi died at the Government Hospital, Rajgarh. Therefore, the claimants -respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a claim petition which was decided by the learned Tribunal by its award dt. 26.09.2013 as aforementioned.

(2.) MR . S.R. Joshi, the learned counsel for the appellant -Insurance Company, has vehemently contended that since both the claimants -respondents, Narain Lal and Vijendra Kumar, happen to be major, are married, and have children, therefore it cannot be taken that they were dependent on the income earned by their mother. Thus, they were not dependent on their mother for their survival. Therefore, they are not entitled to the payment of any compensation whatsoever. According to him, although this objection was taken by the appellant Insurance Company, but it has not been dealt with by the learned Tribunal.

(3.) THERE is no presumption in Law that a person who happens to be major and has children is presumed to be employed and is not dependent on the income earned by his/her parents. If this stand were taken by the Insurance Company, they were required to duly prove this stand through cogent and convincing evidence. However, the Insurance Company did not lead any evidence to prove the fact that the claimants -respondents were duly employed, hence not dependent on their mother for their financial needs. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned counsel cannot be accepted in absence of any evidence led by the Insurance Company.