( 1 ) * * * * *

( 2 ) THE first question to be decided is whether such separate applications by different claimants Were tenable or not. The learned Tribunal in this contention has inter alia observed as under:now it need not be stated that such petition for compensation is instituted under sec. 110 A Motor Vehicles Act 1939 and its clause (b) of sub sec (1) lays down that an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub sec. (1) of sec. 110 may be made where death has resulted from the accident by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased while proviso to this sub section provides that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined any such application for compensation the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives who have not so joined shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. Thus by virtue of this proviso to sub sec. (1) of sec. 110 only one application by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased person is contemplated and that application would be deemed to have been made in a representative character on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives. Thus separate applications by different legal representatives of the deceased would not be maintainable under sec. 110 A Motor Vehicles Act. The application filed by one of the legal representatives would be deemed to have been made in a representative character on behalf of or for the benefit of all the representatives. Therefore in view of this clear provisions under the Act itself only one out of these five applications instituted separately by the widow of the deceased would be maintainable and it would be deemed to have been filed in a representative character on behalf of or for the benefit of other legal representatives of the deceased and other four petitions would be liable to be dismissed. As stated earlier petitioner Ramaben of MACP 29/74 is the widow of deceased Vallabhdas Pragji while the petitioners of MACPs 30 31 and 32 of 19 4 are the minor children and petitioner of MACP 33/74 is the mother of deceased Vallabhdas Pragji. So Ramaben being the mother and natural guardian of her minor children would be entitled to institute a petition for and on behalf of them all. Similarly she would be entitled to institute a petition on behalf of her mother in law also. Of course these other legal representatives of the deceased are not joined as party or impleaded as respondents to the petition instituted by petitioner Ramaben or MACP 29/74 but that is not fatal because she can institute her petition not only on behalf of herself but also for and on behalf of other legal representatives also as she is the guardian of her minor children and she can also represent on behalf of her mother in law. So in view of this legal position separate petitions instituted by other legal representatives of deceased Vallabhdas Pragji would not be maintainable at law and they are liable to be dismissed outright However petitioner Ramaben would be entitled to a compensation for herself as well as for her minor children and her mother in law in the petition instituted by her and as she has in all claimed Rs. 9 990 she would be entitled to that much of compensation in MACP no. 29/74. THE learned Tribunal unfortunately has mis construed the benign provisions of sec. 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In other words the enabling provisions of the said section are treated by the learned Tribunal as importing a sort of a disability. This sort of rigid attitude while interpre ting the salutary provisions of a piece of social legislation is really unfortunate. When the learned Tribunal consolidated all the applications with the consent of the concerned parties and when in each of these five petitions all other heirs were impleaded as parties the learned Tribunal should have treated the consolidated proceedings before him as one