1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO (MVA) No. 65 of 2005 Date of Decision: 17th March, 2010 Manish Appellant Versus Roop Lal and others Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr.Kush Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. Vivek Thakur, counsel for the appellant. For the respondent: Mr. Deepak Bhasin Advocate, for respondent No.3. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) In this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the claimant has assailed the impugned award dated 24.11.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, H.P., whereby his petition filed under Section 166 of the Act stands dismissed. Shri Prakash Chand was travelling on Scooter No. HP-24- 5248, as a pillion rider alongwith his brother Shri Gopal, who was actually driving the scooter. On 17.1.2002 the scooter met with an accident with a truck bearing No. HP-31-3621. The truck owned by Shri Roop Lal (respondent No.1) was being driven by Shri Nag Raj (respondent No.2). It Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 was insured with National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to Insurer) (respondent No.3). In the said accident both Shri Prakash Chand, aged 46 years and Shri Gopal, died. At the time of his death Shri Prakash Chand was working as Halwai in a restaurant and a Sweet shop and having an income of Rs.4000/- per month. Shri Manish, claimant is son of Shri Gopal and nephew of Shri Prakash Chand. Two separate claim petitions under Section 166 of the Act were filed by the legal representatives of the deceased persons. Petition titled as Sheela Devi and others vs. Shri Roop Lal and others, was filed by the widow and the sons of Shri Gopal including the present claimant Shri Manish. The said petition finally came to be decided in terms of the order dated 21.4.2007 passed in the Lok Adalat held by this Court. A copy of the order passed in FAO No.431 of 2005, titled as Sheela Devi and others vs. Shri Roop Lal and others, is on record. Certain payments were made to the claimant. Shri Manish also filed an independent petition claiming himself to be the dependant/ legal representative of Shri Prakash Chand. In the said petition, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Whether Shri Prakash Chand had died on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP-31-3621 being driven by respondent No.2? OPP 2. If Issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation and from whom is the petitioner entitled? OPP 3. Whether the respondent No.2 had not been in possession of a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so, with what effect? OPR-3. 3 4. Whether the claim petition suffers from the vice of non- joinder and mis-joinder, as alleged? OPR-3 5. Relief. The claim petition stands decided in terms of the impugned award. Even though the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Prakash Chand had died in the accident in question, but, however, no compensation was awarded for the reason that the claimant was found not to be dependant upon deceased Shri Prakash Chand. There is no doubt that the claimant is a legal representative of the deceased, but, however, that by itself would not entitle him for award of compensation under Section 166 of the Act. Dependency is a sine qua non. The record does not reveal as to how the claimant was dependant upon Shri Prakash Chand. The claimant concealed the factum of having filed another petition in which compensation stood awarded to him. It is not his case that he was dependant upon both the deceased persons, namely, Shri Prakash Chand and Shri Gopal. There is neither any pleading nor any evidenced to the said effect. No case for interference is made out. The present appeal is dismissed. 17th March, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.