Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010145052022 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MACApp./214/2023 SUKRA MUNDA S/O- LATE SIKKA MUNDA, R/O- NO. 3 PANERY, P.S. AND DIST. UDALGURI, BTAD, ASSAM VERSUS THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD., LNB ROAD, P.O. AND DIST. MANGALDAI, ASSAM, PIN- 784115. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A ALI, MS D DEORI,MS. M KHATUN Advocate for the Respondent : , MS B PATHAK (R-1),MR. D DAS (R-1),MR. R C PAUL (r-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER Date : 10-12-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Ms. Kangkan Taye as well as Mr. R.C. Paul, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Page No.# 2/5 2. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed praying for enhancement of the compensation against the judgment and award dated 06.10.2021 passed by the Additional District Judge. F.T.C, Darrang Mangaldoi in MAC(D) Case No.66/2012. 3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal is that the appellant had filed a claim petition being MAC Case No.66/2012 before the Court of the Additional District Judge. F.T.C, Darrang Mangaldoi claiming Rs.8,00,000/- for the accidental death of his brother and the same was dismissed due to non-joinder of the son of the deceased. The appellant challenged the dismissal order by filing MAC. Appeal No.264/2017 before this Court and this Court disposed of the matter by directing the appellant to file fresh claim petition by impleading the son and daughter of the deceased. During the pendency of the appeal, the son of the deceased passed away and the present appellant filed fresh claim petition being MAC(D) Case No.66/2012 but during pendency of the case, the daughter of the deceased also expired. The fresh claim petition was considered by the Tribunal and the impugned judgment and award dated 06.10.2021 was passed thereby granting an award of Rs.1,20,000/- along with interest at 6% per annum and directed the insurance company to pay within 90 days failing which they were directed to pay future interest at the rate of 8% till realization of the compensation amount. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, the appellant/claimant is before this Court on the ground that the case is a death reference case and the total claim was Rs.8,00,000/- and as such the awarded amount of Rs.1,20,000/- is unreasonable. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal should have Page No.# 3/5 considered that the appellant was the appropriate claimant as the son and daughter of the deceased had already passed away. It is also submitted that since compensation under M.V. Act is a beneficial legislation strict principles of evidence Act should not be followed. The learned counsel has placed reliance in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd vs Nishit Ghosh & Another reported in 2013 (5) GLJ 523. 5. Referring to the above mentioned case, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had allowed the claim application of the brother of the deceased stating that the brother of the deceased may be a legal representative in the absence of preferential heirs under the personal law of the parties. It is also stated that even if a legal representative is not dependant on the deceased and there is no loss of dependency, a legal representative would be entitled to ‘no fault liability’ under section 140 of the Act of 1988 which is a statutory liability and which can be considered as part of the estate of the deceased. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the brother being the only surviving legal heirs of the deceased, he should be considered as appropriate claimant and the Tribunal should have awarded appropriate compensation on loss of dependency. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Mr. R.C. Paul on the other hand submits that at best, the appellant can be considered as legal heir and the tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation under no fault liability, head of funeral expenses, loss of consortium amounting to Rs.1,20,000/-. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also places reliance on the case of The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Anand Pal & Ors. reported in SLP (Civil) No.7805 of 2022, wherein the Hon’ble Page No.# 4/5 Supreme Court observed that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents as because they will be either independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. The Apex Court therefore found that compensation awarded to married siblings is found to be unmerited. Relying on the aforementioned judgment, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that there is no reason for this Court to interfere in the impugned judgment and award dated 06.10.2021 passed by the Additional District Judge. F.T.C, Darrang Mangaldoi. 7. This Court has considered the facts and circumstances and also considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. This Court has also perused the trial Court Records. 8. Upon going through the TCR, this Court finds that no evidence has been adduced before the Tribunal to the effect that the claimants/appellant was a dependent of the deceased. There was also no evidence adduced to prove that the appellant/claimant was either living with the deceased person or that he was dependent on the income of the deceased. At best, the claimant/appellant is a legal representative as the son and daughter of the deceased have already expired and the deceased also has no parents living at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has rightly awarded the sum of Rs. 50,000 under ‘No fault liability’, Rs.15000/- under the head of funeral expenses, Rs. 40,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate amounting to total of Rs.1,20,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also categorically held in New India Assurance Company Limited vs Anand Pal & Ors(supra) that , brothers Page No.# 5/5 and sisters cannot be considered as dependents as because they will be either independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary in the present case regarding the dependency on the deceased, the impugned judgment and award dated 06.10.2021 passed n MAC(D) Case No.66/2012 warrants no interference by this Court and therefore, the appeal stands dismissed. 10. Registry is directed to transmit back the TCR expeditiously. JUDGE Comparing Assistant