1. This Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred aggrieved by the judgment dated 02.06.2011, in M.A.T.O.P. No.182 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, FTC - I, Khammam (for short 'the Tribunal').

2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the record.

3. The appellant Nos.1 & 2 are the brothers of the deceased Mr. Alavala Seetha Ramulu, whereas the appellant No.3 is the widow of the deceased's brother (sister-in-law).

4. The brief facts of the case are that, on 25.08.2007 deceased was standing in front of his working hotel, when the offending lorry bearing No.AP-26-T-5855 driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased. As the accident caused grievous injuries to the deceased, he was immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Khammam where he succumbed to his injuries on 26.08.2007. The appellants filed the aforesaid OP under Section 2 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act, 1988') claiming a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the death of their brother/brother-in-law.

5. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the O.P., holding that the appellants were not entitled to compensation under the Act, 1988 as they failed to establish that they were dependent on the deceased. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record; and that since the appellants and the deceased were living as joint family, they were dependents of the deceased.

7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 contends that the order passed by the Tribunal did not warrant interference as the appellants herein did not establish that they were dependent on the income earned by the deceased for their livelihood.

8. I have taken note of the above contentions. 3

9. At the outset, there is no dispute as regards the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. However, since the appellants are brothers and sister-in-law of the deceased, it shall be examined whether they were entitled to claim compensation.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd1 while referring to their judgment in Gujarat State Board Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai 2 dealt with the expression 'legal representative' for the purpose of claiming compensation. In Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai 's case (supra), the entitlement of the brother of a deceased to maintain a claim petition has been dealt with. The relevant observations are as under:

In the light of the above principle of law, as the appellants Nos.1 and 2 are the only legal representatives being brothers of the deceased, they can maintain the claim petition.

11. However, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that, though the appellants herein claimed to be living in a joint family, the appellant No.2 in his cross examination as PW-1 admitted that they were residing separately after marriage. Further, though the appellants herein claim that the deceased was their sole breadwinner, their occupation is stated as coolie. Thus, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal had rightly held that the appellants were not dependents of the deceased.

12. Notwithstanding the same, a non-dependent legal representative of the deceased is entitled to receive compensation 5 under conventional heads in addition to the compensation under Section 140 of the Act. This view finds support from a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Gangaraju Sowmini Vs. Alavala Sudhakar Reddy and Ors3 , as under:

Apart from the same, there can be a claim for compensation under other conventional heads which are to be necessarily incurred in the case of deaths.

3 AIR 2016 AP 162 6

13. Further, the Gujarat High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Diptiben Ureshbhai Vora4 , through his lordship Justice M.R. Shah, has held as under:

14. In light of the above position of law, since the appellant Nos. 1 & 2 are the brothers and legal representatives of the deceased, they are entitled to receive compensation under Section 140 of the Act, 1988 along with conventional heads of compensation.

15. Further, in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi5 , Anjali Vs. Lokendra Rathod6 , N. Jayasree Vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd7 , the compensation granted under conventional heads is to be enhanced at 10%.

16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the compensation awarded to the appellants No. 1 & 2 is as under:

(2017) 16 SCC 680 6 AIR 2023 SC 44 : 2023 (1) ALD 107 7 AIR 2021 SC 5218 : 2022 (1) ALD 10 8 section 140 of the Act

2. Loss of Estate 16,500/-

3. Loss of Consortium 88,000/-

(44,000 x 2)

4. Funeral Expenses 16,500/-

Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 are held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded by this Court. The appellant Nos.1 & 2 are awarded a compensation of Rs.1,71,000/- with an interest of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation within three months from the date of this order. On such deposit, the appellants No.1 & 2 are entitled to withdraw the compensation so deposited.

18. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

______________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 07.07.2023.

MRKR/VSV 9 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No. 572 OF 2014 07.07.2023 MRKR/VSV