R.K.Mahajan, J. - (1.) This order will dispose of the above two appeals arising out of order dated 18.2.1983 passed by Mr. Sangam Lal Tripathi, District Judge, Jaunpur acting as Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition Nos. 32 and 39 of 1979. The learned Tribunal rejected the claim petitions. In M.A.C.T. Case No. 32 of 1979, the deceased was Gayatri Devi. She was widow and issueless. She was the aunt of the claimants. In M.A.C.T. Case No. 39 of 1979, the deceased was Sankatha Prasad, and Amardevi claimant-appellant is sister of deceased's maternal uncle. As mentioned in the grounds of appeal, they have alleged that they are themselves to be the dependants of the deceased. Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal invoked the provisions of Fatal Accidents Act (13 of 1855) under which only the legal heirs of the deceased- parents, wife and son, can claim the compensation.
(2.) The unfortunate accident took place on 8.2.1978 in which so many persons had died and 30 were injured.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire record. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and perusing the impugned orders, I am of the view that the learned Tribunal has not rightly construed the provisions of Section 110-A read with Section 110-B of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and 1-A of Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. The emphasis of the Motor Vehicles Act is on dependency and in our Indian society, the near and dear, including the brother's children can be dependants, depending on circumstances. The Tribunal has also not given the finding of negligence. Piecemeal trial is not desirable as it leads to delay and injustice.;