JUDGMENT (Sanjay Karol, J.) (Oral) - The present appeal arises out of the award dated 27.12.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan, in M.A.C. Petition No. 5-S/2 of 1992 titled as Haramar Singh v. Kamal Transport Society Ltd. and others, determining the compensation Rs. 86,400/- payable to respondents No. 3 & 4 alone. 2.The appellant is aggrieved of the fact that the amount determined has not been apportioned between all of the legal heirs of the deceased and he being the husband of the deceased was entitled to statutory compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 3.None of the respondents, the Insurance Company, the truck owner, driver or the remaining legal heirs/claimants have filed the appeal. They have accepted the award as it is and are happy with the same. 4.On 1.1.1992, Smt. Prem Devi, aged 60 years, who was travelling in Bus No. HP-07-0747 from Shimla to Kuftu died in an accident, which occurred due to the rash and negligent acts of the driver. Appellant Shri Haramar Singh as husband of the deceased and legal representative filed petition under Section 166 of ‘the Act’ claiming compensation. 5.On the pleadings of the parties, the Court below framed the following issues :- “1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus H.P. 07-0747 as alleged ? OPP 2. Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties ? OPR-2. 3. Whether the petitioner and respondents No. 3 to 5 were dependents on the deceased as alleged ? OPP 4. Whether the deceased was earning anything ? OPP 5. Whether the liability of Insurance Company is limited as per terms of Insurance Policy as alleged ? OPR-2 6. Whether there is collusion between the petitioner and respondents No. 1 and 2 as alleged ? OPR-2 7. Whether the driver was not possessing a valid licence at the time of accident as alleged ? OPR-2 8. Whether the accidental vehicle was not having valid R.C., Route Permit and fitness certificate as alleged ? OPR-2 9. Whether the claim petition is incomplete, vague and does not disclose any cause of action against respondent No. 2, as alleged ? OPR-2 10. Whether the petitioner and respondents No. 4 and 5 are the legal heirs of deceased as alleged ? OPR-3 11. OPR-2 9. Whether the claim petition is incomplete, vague and does not disclose any cause of action against respondent No. 2, as alleged ? OPR-2 10. Whether the petitioner and respondents No. 4 and 5 are the legal heirs of deceased as alleged ? OPR-3 11. To what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom ? OPP 12. Relief.” 6.In order to prove its case, the appellant examined himself as PW-2, Shri Brahmu Ram (PW-1), Smt.Sundri Devi (PW-3) and Shri Arjun Singh (PW-4). Based on the material on record, the Court below came to the conclusion that only respondent No. 3 Smt. Lajwanti and respondent No. 4 Smt. Hardev Kaur were dependent upon the deceased, who was having an income of Rs. 1500/- per month out of which Rs. 900/- were spent on the dependents and, therefore, applying the multiplier of 8, the total amount of Rs. 86,400/- was determined as compensation due and payable to the dependent legal heirs. 7.In the present appeal, there is no challenge to the proceedings to the effect that deceased Prem Devi died due to an accident; she was having a monthly income of Rs. 1500/-; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent acts of the Driver. 8.The appellant, however, has assailed the award on the ground that he was also dependent upon the deceased since 1990 and, therefore, the determined amount ought to have been apportioned also between him. 9.It has also been submitted that in view of the judgment dated 31.3.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Solan, H.P. (Annexure A-2), he was entitled to the estate of the deceased, hence, he alone was entitled to the entire awarded amount. 10.I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 11.From the sworn testimonies of the appellant’s witnesses and more particularly PW-2, it is evident that there is no evidence to substantiate the appellant’s plea that he was dependent upon the deceased. Even in the claim petition, the fact that he was dependent has not been mentioned. Therefore, in the absence of any pleadings and evidence, the contention needs to be rejected for the reason that in a claim petition filed by the claimants under Section 166 of ‘the Act’, the Tribunal is to determine the just amount of compensation payable only to the dependents. Therefore, in the absence of any pleadings and evidence, the contention needs to be rejected for the reason that in a claim petition filed by the claimants under Section 166 of ‘the Act’, the Tribunal is to determine the just amount of compensation payable only to the dependents. (General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and others, 1994(2) Supreme Court Cases 176; Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidya Dhar Dutta and others, 2006(3) Supreme Court Cases 242; FAO No. 312/2004 titled as Kewal v. Tilak Raj and others, decided on 11.4.2008). 12.The another plea raised by the appellant also needs to be rejected for the reason that the statutory compensation is to be determined and payable to the dependent legal heirs only. Even non-dependant legal heirs are not entitled for apportionment of the same. It is not a legacy or inheritance but compensation payable to tide over the crisis in the event of the unfortunate occurrence of the incident. 13.For the aforesaid reasons, the present appeal is dismissed. M.R.B. ———————