1. These two appeals arise out of the order, dated 21.02.2005, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Third Additional District Judge, Karimnagar in O.P.No.782 of 2003.

2. M.A.C.M.A.No.3677 of 2005 is filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited, which was the second respondent before the Tribunal below, whereas M.A.C.M.A.No.3714 of 2005 is filed by the claimant.

3. I have heard Sri C.M.Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the claimant and Sri P.Harinatha Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the New India Assurance Company Limited.

4. The deceased Samala Vittal, who was said to be a Weaver, was aged 55 years on the date of his death in the accident. He was proceeding in an auto bearing No.AP 15 V 2574 at Thangallapalli bridge on 09.01.2003. The said auto turned turtle as a result of the rash and negligent driving of its driver. The deceased, who was one of the passengers, sustained severe injuries in the said accident. Initially, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Siricilla. From there, he was taken to Government Hospital, Karimnagar for better treatment but succumbed to injuries on 01.01.2003 while undergoing treatment in the said hospital.

5. The claimant, who is the younger brother of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 (1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) on account of the death of the deceased in the motor vehicle accident seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. According to him, the deceased was a Weaver and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. It was contended before the Tribunal below by the New India Assurance Company Limited, which is the insurer of the offending vehicle, that since the claimant is not dependent on the deceased, he is not entitled to claim compensation under the provisions of the Act. The learned Tribunal repelled its contention on the ground that as a legal representative of the deceased, the claimant can seek compensation under Section 166 of the Act notwithstanding the fact that he is not a dependent on the deceased. The learned Tribunal considered the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.2,000/- per month believing the version that the deceased was a Weaver by profession and by applying multiplier in Bhagwan Das vs. Mohd.Arif 1987(2) ALT 137’scase, awarded compensation of Rs.82,000/-.

6. The Insurance Company contends in its appeal that the claimant, who is the younger brother of the deceased, is not entitled to claim compensation since he is not the dependent on the deceased whereas the claimant contends in his appeal that the compensation granted is grossly inadequate, not justifiable and not reasonable and requires enhancement. Since common questions of fact and law would arise for consideration in these two appeals, they are being disposed of by the following common judgment:

7. Two questions would arise for consideration in these two appeals.

1. Whether the claimant, who is the younger brother of the deceased, is entitled to claim compensation on account of the death of the deceased in the motor vehicle accident under the provisions of the Act? and

2. If so, the claimant, not being a dependent on the deceased, how to arrive at the quantum of compensation to be paid to him?

8. Point No.1:- Section 166 of the Act does not use the word “dependent” on the question as to who may apply for compensation. The said provision lays down that where the death has resulted from the accident, the application for compensation arising out of the accident can be filed by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. Therefore, the claimant, who is the younger brother of the deceased and was living with the deceased on the date of his death, can make an application under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation on account of the death of the deceased in the motor vehicle accident.

9. In Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another 1987 ACJ 561,the Apex Court held th