*HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO +C.M.A.NO.1979 OF 2004 %Dated: 28.04.2010 BETWEEN: # P.Jonson .. Appellant And $ K.Preiaswamy and another .. Respondents !Counsel for the Appellant: Mr P.Ganga Rami Reddy ^ Counsel for the Respondent : Mr P.Harinath Gupta <GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1979 OF 2004 Dated: 28.04.2010 BETWEEN: P.Jonson .. Appellant And K.Preiaswamy and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1979 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed challenging the award, dated 05.05.2004 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad in M.V.O.P.No.39 of 2002. 2. I have hard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent- insurance company. 3. Vana Kumari, unmarried woman aged 44 years working as examiner in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 03.06.2001 wherein oil tanker bearing No. AP 31 T 8586 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent-insurance company at material time was involved. 4. The learned Tribunal basing on the evidence forthcoming before it had given a categorical finding that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the oil tanker bearing No.AP 31 T 8586, the accident occurred and therefore, if at all, the appellant is entitled for compensation, the respondents 1 and 2 being the insured and the insurer of the said vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 5. The appellant, P.Jonson is a retired teacher and was aged 58 years on the date of accident. He was living separately from the deceased and the learned Tribunal held that he was not a dependant on the deceased and therefore, he is not entitled to claim compensation on account of her death in a motor vehicle accident and accordingly dismissed the claim petition filed by him. 6. Now the point for consideration is whether the appellant a retired teacher and was not a dependant on the deceased is entitled to claim any compensation from the respondents on account of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident, if so to what amount? 7. In MANJURI BERA v ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD AND ANOTHER[1] the Hon’ble Supreme Court had dealt with a claim preferred by a married daughter for compensation on account of the death of her father. It was held in paras 9 and 16 as follows: “In terms of clause © of Sub-section(1) of Section 166 of the Act in case of death, all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased become entitled to compensation and any such legal representative can file a claim petition. The proviso to said sub-section makes the position clear that where all the legal representatives had not joined, then application can be made on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased by impleading those legal representatives as respondents. Therefore, the High court was justified in its view that the appellant could maintain a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Act. Judged in that back ground 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.” 8. In the instant case, it could be gathered from the material available on record that the appellant P.Jonson was in fact, not dependant on the deceased and the deceased was living separately. Further, the appellant was a retired teacher and was getting pension. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, though, it was held that in a claim made by a legal representative who is not the dependant on the deceased, the quantum shall not be less than the liability referable to section 140 of the Act in the instant case, in my considered view and for the aforementioned reasons, the appellant is only entitled for an amount of Rs.50,000/-, the statutory compensation provided for under Section 140 of the Act under ‘no fault liability’ clause. The appellant is, therefore, entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 28.04.2010 Note: Mark L.R. copy b/o kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1979 OF 2004 Dated: 28.04.2010 [1] 2007 ACJ 1279