IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'legal representative' under the Motor Vehicles Act and the entitlement of the legal representative to enhanced compensation, as evidenced by relevant case laws.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1988”) arises out of the award dated 03.09.2014 passed by First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as “Claims Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.72 of 2011 awarding a compensation of Rs.1,23,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum considering that appellant Rai Singh was not dependent on his brother Kalinder Ram, who died in the road accident.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case, are that, on 06.12.2009, at about 5:15 PM, Kalinder Ram and Shivratan Ram, who were working on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III were going to their home at village Sidhama from Ambikapur on motorcycle, at that relevant time, while driving Tractor bearing registration No.CG-15-A-2198 and trolley bearing registration No.CG-15-A-2199 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) by respondent No.1 Dilip Ram rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle, due to which, Kalinder Ram and Shivratan Ram suffered injuries and died. Thereafter, Crime No.792 of 2009 was registered against respondent No.1 at Police Station Ambikapur.

3. Appellant Rai Singh being elder brother of Kalinder Ram (deceased) filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.47,66,000/- pleading therein that Kalinder Ram was his younger brother and he is dependent upon the income of deceased.

4. After appreciating the evidence available on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties learned Claims Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.1,23,000/- holding that respondents being driver, owner and insurer of offending vehicle were liable to satisfy the amount of compensation jointly. Learned Claims Tribunal further held that monthly income of deceased Kalinder Ram, who was working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III was Rs.6,000/- per annum. Appellant Rai Singh was doing the working of agriculture. When deceased Kalinder Ram was working as Shikha Karmi, it was not possible for him to always cooperate with appellant Rai Singh in his agricultural work. Therefore, it was accepted that deceased Kalinder Ram must have helped his elder brother appellant Rai Singh in his agricultural work for only 2 months and on this basis, loss of income for 2 months was determined as Rs.100/- per day, i.e. Rs.6,000/- for 2 months. After applying the multiplier of 18, loss of future income was assessed as Rs.1,08,000/-. Learned Claims Tribunal further awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and thereby awarded total compensation of Rs.1,23,000/-, which has been challenged in this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that according to Section 166 (1) (C) of the Act of 1988, all or any of the legal representative of the deceased in the accident can submit an application for compensation. In the case at hand, parents of deceased Kalinder Ram were already died, deceased Kalinder Ram was unmarried, his elder sister is married and lived in her in-laws house, as such, being the only brother, appellant Rai Singh is legal representative of deceased and dependent upon the income of deceased, but Claims Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the dependency of appellant while calculating the amount of compensation. He further argued that after considering all these factors, amount of compensation needs to be enhanced suitably. He placed reliance in the matters of Manjuri Bera (Smt.) v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another reported in (2007) 10 SCC 643 and Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmadabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Another reported in (1987) 3 SCC 234, to buttress his submission.

6. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for respondent No.3 has supported the impugned award and argued that appellant was not dependent upon his deceased brother and he has his own source of income, hence, impugned award passed by the