M. RAMAKRISHNA, J.

( 1 ) WE have heard Sri O. Mahesh, learned counsel for the appellant, and perused the grounds taken in the appeal as well as the order made by the Tribunal under Section 140 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as the Act') by which a sum of Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded by way of interim award along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

( 2 ) THE main contention of Sri O. Mahesh, in support of theappeal is that the original claimant Smt. Sarojini Gopal Hegde, mother of Anitha, who died in the accident occurred on 30-5-1992, having died during the pendency of M. V. C. No. 850 of 1992, the Tribunal was in error in allowing the application under Section 140 of the Act for grant of interim compensation in favour of the respondents herein who are none other than the other dependants of Smt. Sarojini. His submission is that the respondents No. 2 and 3 being not the legal representatives of the deceased Anitha, are not entitled to come on record claiming compensation.

( 3 ) WE have perused the order under appeal. In paragraph No. 9 thereof, the Tribunal observed that the respondents, including the appellant herein, did not seriously object to grant of interim compensation. However, being aggrieved by the order granting interim compensation in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the appellant filed this appeal.

( 4 ) ON merits, we do not agree with the contention of Srio. Mahesh, inasmuch as this court having considered a similar question in MFA No. 1627/86, disposed of on 19-1-1994, held against the similar contention.

( 5 ) FURTHER, the Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Stateroad Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v Ramanbhai prabhatbhai and Another, has held that:"9. Clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 110-A of the Act provide that an application for compensation arising out of an accident may be made where death has resulted from the accident by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased or by any agent duly authorised by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 110-A provides that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined 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. The expression legal representative' has not been defined in the Act. Section 2 (11) of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 defines legal representative' as a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. The above definition, no doubt, in terms does not apply to a case before the Claims tribunal but it has to be stated that even in ordinary parlance the said expression is understood almost in the same way in which it is defined in the Code of Civil Procedure. A legal representative ordinarily means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person or a person on whom the estate devolves on the death of an individual. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 110-A of the Act authorises all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased to make an application for compensation before the claims Tribunal for the death of the deceased on account of a motor vehicle accident and clause (c) of that sub-section authorises any agent duly authorised by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased to make it. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 110-A of the Act appears to be of some significance. It provides that the application for compensation shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased. Section 110-A (1)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document