The legal representatives of the deceased, and not just the dependents, are entitled to file an application for compensation under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the extent of the pecuniary loss suffered by the legal representatives has to be assessed.

( 1 ) THE appellants are the widow and two sons of Manohar Lal Khurana who died as a result of an accident, which took place at about 11. 45 pm. on September 7, 1963. The deceased was travelling at that time as a pillion passenger on a motor cycle owned by respondent No. 6, driven by respondent No 4 and insured with respondent No. 5. The motor cycle was knocked down by a car driven by Rudar Singh, respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. The deceased was thrown on the road due to the impact and received grievous injuries, as a result of which he died 32 hours thereafter in the Safdarjang Hospital. Appellant No. 1, the widow, and appellants Nos. 2 and 3, the sons of the deceased, then filed application under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the award of Rs. 25. 000. 00 as compensation, on the allegation that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the car driver, respondent No. 1, who was driving the same in the course of his employment under respondent No. 2. The amount was claimed in the alternative from the motor cycle driver, the insurance company, and the owner of the motor cycle, respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6, respectively, in case it was found that the accident was due to the negligence of respondent No. 4.

( 2 ). The application was contested by the respondents. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of car, which according to them, was proceeding at a speed of about 15 miles per hour on the correct side of the Link Road from the India Gate side, to Defence Colony (North to South), with Baldev Raj Nagrath, sitting in it According to them, the motor cycle was coming from the southern side at a terrific speed driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 4, when it struck against the car on reaching the T-intersection where the road coming from Jangpura side meets the Link Road. Respondent No 4 pleaded that there was no negligence on his part. According to respondent No. 6, the motor cycle was not being driven at that time during the course of respondent No4 s employment with them They, therefore, denied vicarious liability for the appellants claim. Respondent No, 5, the insurance company, likewise repudiated the claim,

( 3 ). The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was due to the negligence of respondent No. 1, the driver of the car. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were, therefore, held liable to compensate the appellants, It was also found that the deceased was earning Rs. 300. 00per month, out of which RS. 150. 00 could be takenas the contribution of his sons, thereby reducing the loss to the family on account of his death to Rs. 150. 00 per month. Dedictiong Rs. 75. 00 towards personal expenses of the deceased, the net loss to the family was assessed at Rs 75. 00 per month or Rs. 900. 00psr year. The age of the deceased was fixed at 55 years. The compensation for six years was calculated a Rs. 5400. 00. Further reduction of 10% for payment being in lump-sum was made to bring the amount to Rs 4860/. It was or her found that the deceased had two houdes. the value of which was estimated at Rs. 20. 000. 00. A sum of Rs. 2000. 00 was, therefore, deducted from the comoensatin for accelsration of succession at the rate of 10% of the total value of the property. The net amount payable to the appellants was thus worked out to Rs 2860. 00 for which the award was made in favour of the appellant against respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Half costs were allowed. The liability of the the insurance company, respondent No. 3, was fixed the extent of the entire amount awarded The petition was dismissed against respondents Nos 4 to 6, living them to bear their own costs.

( 4 ). On notice of the appeal being served, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 filed cross objections under Rule 22 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that the accident had been caused due to th