SATISH CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and order dated 22.01.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sultanpur in Claim Petition No. 71 of 2001 (Ram Singh v. Rama Shanker and Others) whereby a compensation of rupees one lac was awarded.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 14.02.2001 at about 5.30 pm, Sri Sahdev Singh (hereinafter referred as deceased) was crossing the Sultanpur-Jaunpur National Highway by his bicycle. A motorcycle no. U.P.72-8425 came with speed and dashed the cyclist. The deceased sustained injuries and was admitted in the hospital and next day he was referred to Lucknow where he died. As per the postmortem report, the age of the deceased was taken as 60 years. The son of the deceased has filed the Claim Petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.80,000/- plus Rs.20,000/- as consortium, loss of estate and funeral etc. Thus, the total compensation of rupees one lac was awarded against the appellant. With this background, Sri S. P. Maurya, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimant has not filed any Khatauni nor produced any witness to prove the income of the deceased. The award was passed on the basis of presumption and without any material evidence, which is on higher side. He also submits that there was no evidence of the rash and negligent driving but the Tribunal has passed the award against the appellant contrary to the material evidence. The claimant-respondent who was about 28 years of age cannot proved the dependency of the deceased. So, award cannot be passed. For this purpose, he relied on the ratio laid down in the case of Mrs. Hafizun Begum v. Md. Ikram Heque and others; 2007 (4) T.A.C. 1 (S.C) where it was observed that right to file a claim application has to be considered in the background of right to entitlement. The legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent or child.
(3.) LEARNED counsel further relied on the ration laid down in the case of Smt. Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.; 2007 AIR SCW 1962 where it was observed that liability in terms of Section 140 however does not cease because of absence of dependency. 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.;