1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-original opponent No.3 has challenged the judgement and award dated 23.01.2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.4) at Gandhidham, in M.C.A.P. No.698 of 1999, whereby the tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- to the claimant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization.
2. The short facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 21.09.1998 in an vehicular accident one minor Kumari Shivani Ravikumar Sharma expired Therefore, the brother of the deceased filed claim petition being M.A.C. P. 698 of 1999 before the Tribunal for compensation. The Tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after recording the evidence decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated herein above against which the present appeal is filed by the appellants-original opponent No.3.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in passing the impugned judgement and award. He further contended that the original claimant is the brother of the deceased. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Apex Court claimant cannot be entitled for compensation. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in 2009(6) SCC, 121 and prayed to allow this appeal.
4. I have heard learned advocate for the appellant and perused the materials on record. It is not in dispute that the original claimant is the brother of the deceased. I find that the Tribunal has committed an error in ignoring the fact that the claimant is the brother of the deceased. I have gone through the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (Supra), wherein it has been held that the major brother is not entitled to claim compensation as he is not dependent on his sister's income. He is only entitled to receive compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the “Loss of estate”. Here, in this case the claimant is the brother of the deceased. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court will be applied in the present case.
5. In view of the decision of the Apex Court, the judgement and award of the Tribunal is required to be quashed and set aside. Therefore, the judgement and award of the Tribunal is quashed and set aside. The claimants are only entitled to receive compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the head of Loss of Estate. Therefore, the excess amount of Rs.1,75,000/- will be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company with interest and cost, if any, if the same is deposited by the appellant with the tribunal.
6. The judgement and award of the tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. Decree be drawn accordingly. The present appeal is partly allowed.
(K.S.JHAVERI,J.)
pawan