- (1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant for enhancement of compensation in respect of the death of her brother Lakhwinder Singh and for the injuries sustained by the appellant-claimant in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 28.2.2005 in the area of Shahabad when the car in which she was travelling along with some other persons, met with an accident with the offending bus coming from Ambala side being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 1 who, in the process of overtaking a tractor-trolley in a reckless manner, caused the accident. The occupants of the car sustained injuries and one of them also died. The claimant-appellant also sustained multiple grievous injuries. The claim petition filed by Charanjit Kaur has been contested by Jaswant Kaur who states herself to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased. She states that for this reason she is entitled to compensation with regard to death of deceased Lakhwinder Singh.
(2.) The Tribunal rejected the claim of both i.e. Charanjit Kaur and Jaswant Kaur for compensation for the death of Lakhwinder Singh. With regard to Charanjit Kaur the Tribunal held that she being the married sister cannot be said to be dependent on her brother and in respect of Jaswant Kaur she was not proved to be his legally wedded wife.
(3.) Counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the whole system of compensation for motor vehicle accidents in India is based upon the question of dependency and since the sister was not dependent on the brother, she could not have been granted any compensation. He has relied upon Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Company and another, 2007 2 RCR(Civ) 675 to contend that even if the claimants are held entitled to compensation even though they are not dependents the maximum limit can be only Rs. 50,000/-. Paras. 10 and 11 of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:- "10. As observed by this Court in Custodian of Branches of BANCO National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique, 1989 2 SCR 810 the definition contained in Section 2(11) C.P.C. is inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is not confined to legal heirs only. Instead it stipulates that a person who may or may not be legal heir competent to inherit the property of the deceased can represent the estate of the deceased person. It includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate even without title either as executors or administrators in possession of the estate of the deceased. All such persons would be covered by the expression 'legal representative'. As observed in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Anr., 1987 3 SCR 404 a legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child. 11. 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.";