JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed by the dependent of the deceased seeking enhancement of compensation, being aggrieved by judgment & award dated 23.12.2014 passed in MVC No.4/2008 by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Hubballi (for short, ‘Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that one Sri. Shivappa Sangalad, met with an accident on 20.11.2007. His son Sri. Basavaraj Shivappa Sangalad filed a claim petition along with his two sisters seeking compensation. During the pendency of the said claim petition, the claimant No.1/Basavaraj Shivappa Sangalad, son of the deceased has died. Then Smt. Parvati, the wife of claimant No.1 was brought on record and she continued the proceedings. It is averred that the deceased-Shivappa Sangalad was standing near Manu Hotel on the left side of P.B. Road on 20.11.2007, at that time, TVS Suzuki Max-100 Deluxe motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-25-S-6587 ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the deceased. Resultantly, deceased fell down and sustained fatal injuries and later he succumbed to the injuries on 05.12.2007. It is averred that the deceased was an Accountant in Merchants Shop in APMC, Hubballi. It is further contended that due to the untimely death, the claimant lost love, affection and a source of income. It is also averred that the rider of the motorcycle was negligent and caused the accident. Hence, filed claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation. 3. The respondents entered appearance before the Tribunal, opposed the claim petition. The Tribunal considering the evidence available on record awarded total compensation of Rs.22,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. to the claimant No.1(a) and also awarded Rs.5,000/- each to the claimant Nos. 2 and 3. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, wife of the claimant No.1 filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. Sri. Y. Lakshmikant Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed grave error in awarding meager compensation of Rs.22,000/- without considering that the appellant was depending on the earnings of the deceased. He submits that the original claim petition was filed by the son and two daughters of the deceased and during the pendency of the claim petition before the Tribunal, his son has died and hence, his legal heir was brought on record. 5. He submits that the original claim petition was filed by the son and two daughters of the deceased and during the pendency of the claim petition before the Tribunal, his son has died and hence, his legal heir was brought on record. 5. It is further submitted that the deceased-Shivappa Sangalad, his late son and the present appellant were residing together under one roof and son of the deceased and daughter in law of the deceased were fully dependant on the income of the deceased. Hence, he seeks to consider the appellant as a dependant of the deceased for the purpose of awarding compensation and seeks to allow the appeal by awarding appropriate compensation to the appellant. 6. Per contra, Smt.Preethi Shashank, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 opposes the appeal by supporting judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the appellant can be the dependant of son of the deceased and she cannot be the dependant of her father in law. Hence, she is not entitled to any compensation under the head of loss of dependency. Thus, she seeks to dismiss the appeal. 7. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent No.5 and meticulously perused the material available on record, including the Tribunal records. 8. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether Tribunal has justified in not considering the appellant as a dependant of the deceased and awarded just compensation? 9. The answer to the above point is in the “negative” for the following reasons: 10. The parties to the proceeding do not dispute that one Sri.Shivappa Sangalad met with an accident on 20.11.2007, sustained fatal injuries in the said accident and after taking treatment for some time, he succumbed to the injuries. It is also not in dispute that son of the deceased Basavaraj and two daughters have filed claim petition, which was registered as MVC.No.4/2008. During the pendency of the claim petition before the Tribunal, son of the deceased namely Sri.Basavaraj died. After death of claimant No.1 (Basavaraj), his wife Smt.Parvathi Sangalad/the appellant herein was brought on record. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company that the appellant cannot be treated as dependant of the deceased Shivappa Sangalad. During the pendency of the claim petition before the Tribunal, son of the deceased namely Sri.Basavaraj died. After death of claimant No.1 (Basavaraj), his wife Smt.Parvathi Sangalad/the appellant herein was brought on record. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company that the appellant cannot be treated as dependant of the deceased Shivappa Sangalad. The said contention is taken note for the purpose of rejection only for the simple reason that the evidence available on record clearly indicates that son of the deceased Sri.Basavaraj and his wife Smt.Parvathi/appellant herein were residing along with the deceased under one roof. The evidence of PW.2 clearly indicates that the deceased was working as Accountant in Merchant Shop in APMC, Hubballi, also was doing small scale business in APMC, Hubballi and the deceased was main bread earner to the entire family. She further stated that if the deceased was alive, he could have looked after his unmarried daughter and her marriage responsibility was also on the deceased. The evidence also indicates that untimely death of her father in law, herself and her family members lost love & affection and also lost source of income. 11. This Court on careful perusal of pleadings and oral testimony of PW.2, is of the considered view that the deceased Shivappa Sangalad used to contribute his entire earnings to the family and his late son and daughter-in-law i.e., the present appellant herein were dependant on the income of the deceased. The respondent/insurance company has cross examined PW.2 at length, however nothing has been elicited with regard to dependency of the appellant. Hence, it can be fairly inferred that the appellant was fully dependant on the income of the deceased. The evidence available on record clearly indicates that the appellant is a homemaker and her husband has died during the pendency of claim petition. Hence, the appellant is a dependant of the deceased Shivappa Sangalad. The loss of dependency, it does not mean financial dependency is the ‘ark of the covenant’. Dependency includes gratuitous service dependency, physical dependency, emotional dependency, psychological dependency so on and so forth, which can never be equated in terms of the money. 12. Hence, the appellant is a dependant of the deceased Shivappa Sangalad. The loss of dependency, it does not mean financial dependency is the ‘ark of the covenant’. Dependency includes gratuitous service dependency, physical dependency, emotional dependency, psychological dependency so on and so forth, which can never be equated in terms of the money. 12. For the better understanding of the concept of dependency, it would be useful to refer decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., V/s. Birender and others , reported in 2020 SCC 759 , at paragraph No.15 of the judgment it is held as follows: 15. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. The evidence on record in the present case would suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre income between Rs.1,00,000 and Rs.1,50,000 per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependant on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years. 13. Keeping in mind enunciation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and evidence available on record, this Court holds that the appellant, who is the dependant of deceased Shivappa Sangalad, is entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency. 14. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘MV Act’) does not define the term ‘dependent’, nor it defines the term ‘legal representatives’. The term ‘dependent’ means, a person, who in law succeeds to the estate of the deceased and financially dependent on the deceased. The provisions of the MV Act gave paramount importance to the concept of just and fair compensation. MV Act being a beneficial legislation, which has been framed with the particular object of providing relief to the victims of the road accident or their families. The provisions of the MV Act gave paramount importance to the concept of just and fair compensation. MV Act being a beneficial legislation, which has been framed with the particular object of providing relief to the victims of the road accident or their families. Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the concept of ‘just compensation’. Determination of just compensation depends on the various factors by applying principles of fairness and reasonableness and applying equitable methods. The award of compensation under the MV Act cannot on the basis on the arithmetical precision. The Courts and Tribunals are required to award just and fair compensation to the dependents of the deceased, based on the facts and circumstances of each case and which is the primary object of the MV Act. 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , at paragraph-16 has held as under: “16. ………..’Just Compensation’ is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well-settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.’ 16. The said principle has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., V/s. Pranay Sethi and Ors., reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 . 17. Section 166 of the MV Act provides for filing of an application for compensation. The relevant portion of the said Section is as under: “166. The said principle has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., V/s. Pranay Sethi and Ors., reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 . 17. Section 166 of the MV Act provides for filing of an application for compensation. The relevant portion of the said Section is as under: “166. Application for compensation.- (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made- (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or al or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be; Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not jointed in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application.” 18. Keeping in mind the aforesaid enunciation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the provisions of law, it is very clear that in case of death resulted from the accident, all the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to file an application under Section 166 of the MV Act. All the legal representatives include, daughter-in-law in the instant case. This Court is saying so for the reason that the legal representatives of the deceased has filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act in the instant case. During the pendency of the said claim petition before the Tribunal, the present appellant, who is daughter-in-law of the deceased, was brought on record, as a legal representative to succeed to the estate of her husband, who was legally entitled to succeed to the estate of his father (deceased in the instant case). 19. MV Act does not define the term ‘dependent’. 19. MV Act does not define the term ‘dependent’. In the absence of any definition of word ‘dependent’, this Court is required to give wider and liberal meaning to the word ‘dependent’ for the purpose of Chapter XII of the MV Act, as the MV Act is a benevolent legislation enacted for the object of providing monetary relief to the victims or their families. Therefore, the MV Act calls for a liberal and wider interpretation to serve the real purpose underlying the enactment and fulfill its legislative intent. This Court is of the considered view that the daughter-in-law, who is financially dependent on the father-in-law, is the dependent under the MV Act and she is entitled to claim compensation under the head of loss of dependency. This Court is saying so keeping in mind that in Indian Family System, brothers, sisters & brothers’ children, their spouse and sometimes foster children live together and they are dependent upon the bread-winner of the family and if the bread-winner is killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, then dependents are entitled for compensation. There is no justification to deny them compensation to the dependent only on the ground that the appellant is a daughter-in-law of the deceased. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant is treated as dependent of the deceased for the purpose of determining the compensation. 20. Insofar as entitlement of compensation is concerned, admittedly, the appellant has not placed any evidence with regard to income of the deceased. Hence, this Court notionally assesses the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month keeping in mind the notional income chart prepared by the KSLSA. The deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of accident. Hence, appropriate multiplier would be 11 and appropriate deduction would be 1/3rd. The appellant is also entitled to an addition of 10% of the assessed income of the deceased under the head of loss of future prospects, keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi referred supra. Thus, the appellant is entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency as under: 4000 + 10% x 11 x 12 x 2/3 = 3,87,200/- 21. Thus, the appellant is entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency as under: 4000 + 10% x 11 x 12 x 2/3 = 3,87,200/- 21. The appellant is entitled to loss of consortium of Rs.44,000/- and also entitled to Rs.16,500/- under the head of loss of estate and Rs.16,500/- under the head of transportation of dead body and funeral expenses including 10% escalation. Thus, the appellant would be entitled to modified compensation on the following heads: Particulars Amount (in Rs.) Loss of dependency 3,87,200/- Loss of estate 16,500/- Funeral expenses 16,500/- Loss of consortium 44,000/- Total 4,64,200/- Thus, the appellant shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,64,200/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment as against Rs.22,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 22. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (a) Appeal stands allowed in part. (b) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the appellant/claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,64,200/- as against Rs.22,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. (c) The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. (d) The insurance company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. (e) On such deposit, 50% of the same shall be deposited in the name of appellant in any nationalized bank for a period of three years with liberty to her to withdraw periodical interest accrued thereon and remaining 50% shall be released in her favour. (f) Registry to transmit the records forthwith to the Tribunal. (g) Draw modified award accordingly.