Whether a married sister can maintain a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act, for brevity) is the short but interesting question that falls for consideration in this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Act. Before addressing the question, brief background of the case may be noticed. Tadivada Bangarappadu aged about 50 years at the relevant time was a member of Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency. He was also fair price shop dealer statedly earning Rs.2,500/- per month. On 18.05.1996 at 10.45 am while going towards Srikakulam side on his luna, at a place near petrol bunk, Pusapatirega, a lorry bearing No.AP 12 T 4419 driven by first respondent dashed against him, resulting in instantaneous death of Bangarappadu.

Smt. Seshapu Ramulamma - appellant herein who is aged about 55 years filed O.P.No.327 of 1996 before the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vizinagaram. She claimed that she is sister of deceased and that she is lone surviving legal representative entitled to the estate and compensation that may be awarded under the Act. As it generally happens, driver and owner of offending vehicle remained ex parte. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, third respondent herein, opposed OP denying the right of appellant to claim compensation as legal heir. Relevant to the two issues framed, appellant let in evidence - oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and documentary evidence of Exs.A1 to A4. Ex.B1 copy of insurance policy was marked. On the question of negligence the point was held in favour of appellant. However, on the question of entitlement and quantum, learned Tribunal while placing reliance on A.P.S.R.T.C. Corpn. V Shafiya Khatoon1985 ACJ 212 wherein it was held that a married sister is not entitled to maintain a petition under Section 166 of the Act as she cannot be considered a dependent legal heir, OP was dismissed, aggrieved by which instant appeal is filed.

Learned counsel for appellant placed reliance on Gujarat S.R.T.C. v Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai(1987) 3 SCC 234 and submits that even an unmarried sister is entitled to maintain claim petition under the Act. Per contra, learned standing counsel for insurer placed reliance on Shafiya (supra), New India Assurance Co., Ltd. v P. Prabhavathi1996(4) ALT 449 (D.B.) and Smt. Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2007 ACJ 1279 SC = AIR 2007 SC 1474 and submits that a married sister cannot be treated as a dependent or legal representative entitled to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Act.

The Act does not define 'legal representative'. Section 166 of the Act is enabling provision for claiming compensation. All the legal representatives of the deceased who died or sustained injuries in a motor accident can make an application to a claims tribunal constituted under Section 165 of the Act. In Shafiya (supra) a Division Bench of this Court considered the question whether the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, can be shared by the dependents not enumerated under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. The Division Bench, while observing that the concept of 'legal representative' has to be liberally interpreted, laid down as under.

In our view the provisions under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 not only empower the Tribunal to make an award which is 'just' but also empower the said Tribunal to specify the person or persons to whom the compensation shall be paid, thereby permitting apportionment of compensation payable under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 to persons other than those enumerated in the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. In our view all the legal representatives of the deceased, according to the person law applicable to the deceased, will be entitled to apportionment of the dependency as per their needs and according to their age and apportionment is not limited to the class of persons enumerated under Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act read with Section 4 thereof.

However, concerning a married sist