Though the quantum of compensation awarded is low when compared to what was claimed, the presiding officer of the MACT has discussed at length the issue of dependency as defined under the Motor Vehicles Act, while scaling down the quantum of compensation.

The claim pertains to a road mishap in which Vishakaben Dave (50) was killed along with her brother-in-law, Anantbhai Patel, when they were on their way from Shirdi to Mumbai on June 19, 1988. Also injured in the accident were Dhaval Dave, son of Vishakaben and Shainbhai, son of her brother-in-law.

The car in which they were travelling had collided with a Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) bus on the Kasara Ghat on the Bombay Agra Highway.Anantbhai Patel was at the wheel when the mishap occurred.

The applicants Hiranyakant Krishnakant Dave, 60, and his two sons Dhaval H Dave, 37 and Nikhil H Dave, 18, all residents of California, claimed that the accident had occurred due to some reckless driving by Anantbai Patel and the MSRTC bus driver.

The MACT presiding officer upheld the applicants' contention. He, however, scaled down the quantum of compensation as the NRI family could not furnish documents to substantiate Vishakaben's income as claimed by them, nor could they establish that they were fully dependent on her for their living. The family claimed that Vishakaben, who used to help her husband in running a grocery shop, also ran a small catering business. They claimed she was earning around $1,400 a month.

Defence counsel Darandale argued that though it could be assumed that the deceased was earning some money by helping her husband in running his business, there was no documentary proof to substantiate the applicants' claim that shewas also running a catering business.

Similarly, the MACT presiding officer ruled that two of Vishakaben's sons could in no way be considered to be fully dependent on her as both were earning at the time of the accident.

The presiding officer ordered the MSRTC and the Oriental Insurance Company, in which the owner of the car had an insurance, to equally share the compensation.