Arun Sharma and Others vs Ram Kumar Tyagi and Others

G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appellants being legal representatives of Ms. Soni seek enhancement of compensation of Rs. 65,000/- for her death in an accident which took place on 16.08.2010.

It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellants, who are the parents and minor brothers and sisters of the deceased that the compensation awarded is too meager and low.

It is admitted case of the Appellants that there was a matrimonial dispute between the deceased and her husband. Ms. Soni was, therefore, residing away from her husband and with her parents. The Appellants or for that matter the other minor brothers and sisters were not dependent upon the deceased. There was thus no loss of dependency on account of death of Ms. Soni.

In Smt. Manjuri Bera Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Another, , the question of award of compensation for death of a married daughter came up for consideration before the Calcutta High Court. The Claim Petition filed by the deceased''s mother was dismissed by the Tribunal as also by the Calcutta High Court on the ground that there was no loss of dependency. The Supreme Court referred to the term "legal representative", as used u/s 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act (the Act) with reference to its definition u/s 2(11) of the CPC (CPC) and held that the definition of "legal representative" as contained in Section 2(11) CPC is applicable to the Act and is inclusive in character, its scope is wide and is not confined to legal heirs only. The Supreme Court referred to Custodian of Branches of Custodian of Branches of Banco National Ultramarino Vs. Nalini Bai Naique, and held that the legal representatives are entitled to the statutory compensation payable u/s 140 of the Act. Para 13 to 15 of the report are extracted hereunder:-

There are several factors which have to be noted. The liability u/s 140 of the Act does not cease because there is absence of dependency. The right to file a claim application has to be considered in the background of right to entitlement. While assessing the quantum, the multiplier system is applied because of deprivation of dependency. In other words, multiplier is a measure. There are three stages while assessing the question of entitlement. Firstly, the liability of the person who is liable and the person who is to indemnify the liability, if any. Next is the quantification and Section 166 is primarily in the nature of recovery proceedings. As noted above, liability in terms of Section 140 of the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency.

Section 165 of the Act also throws some light on the controversy. The Explanation includes the liability under Sections 140 and 163-A.

Judged in that background where a legal representative who is not dependant files an application for compensation, the quantum cannot be less than the liability referable to Section 140 of the Act. Therefore, even if there is no loss of dependency the claimant if he or she is a legal representative will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall be not less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act.

In view of Manjuri Bera, I hold that the Appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards the loss of estate in addition to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on account of loss of love and affection and Rs. 10,000/- towards the funeral expenses.

The compensation awarded is enhanced from Rs. 65,000/- to Rs. 85,000/-.

The enhanced compensation of Rs. 20,000/- shall carry interest @ 7.5 per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment. Respondent No.3 United India Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks along with interest as per the Tribunal''s order and shall be payable to the Appellant No.1 Arun Sharma father of the deceased.

The appeal is allowed in above terms.

Pending applications also stand disposed of.