ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, J. - (1.) WE have heard Sri D.N. Mishra, counsel for the appellant, and perused the impugned award as also papers filed alongwith memo of appeal. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 22.1.2013 passed by M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Kanpur Nagar in M.A.C.P. No. 148 of 2012, whereby compensation of Rs. 50,000 together with simple interest @ 6% per annum had been awarded to the appellant on account of death of her father in the motor accident.
(2.) IT appears that the appellant is the married daughter of the deceased Babu who suffered death in a motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of Mini Truck (D.C.M.) Registration No. U.P. 77/N -5471 by its driver. The appellant filed claim petition for an award of Rs. 44,90,000 alleging that she is sole legal representative and dependent of the deceased. She alleged that although she is married for five years, but even after marriage she is living with her father as there is no family member to look after him. The claim petition was contested by the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record found that the appellant being married daughter of the deceased is not dependent on his income, therefore, she is entitled to get only Rs. 50,000 as provided under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act. Learned counsel for the appellant castigating the award has contended that the Tribunal wrongly interpreted the ratio given by the Supreme Court in the case of Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2007 3 AWC 2158). In this case also claim petition was filed by married daughter of the deceased and the High Court held that she could maintain the claim in terms of Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but she was not entitled to any compensation as she was not dependent upon the deceased. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the report the Hon'ble Court has observed as under: 5. There are several factors which have to be noted. The liability under Section 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 163A. 6. Judges in that background where a legal representative who is not dependent 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. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There will be no order as to costs. We record our appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Shri Jayant Bhushan, the learned amicus curiae.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has stressed that quantum of compensation shall not be less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, as held by the Apex Court. However, we are not convinced with this argument. The maximum amount which can be awarded under Section 140 of Motor ' Vehicles Act, is Rs. 50,000. Thus, the Tribunal has not at all erred in placing reliance on the above judgment of the Apex Court.;