JUDGMENT :

K.J. Thaker, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 19.2.2010 passed by the M.A.C.T. (Main), Porbandar in MCA Petition No. 91/2003.

2. The facts of the present appeal is that the deceased Bhagvanjibhai Rudabhai Kanjia was died due to negligent driving of opponent no. 1 in the present incident, which was happened on 14.6.2003 at about 10.45am. Therefore, the present appellants have filed MAC Petition before the Tribunal, whereby, the learned Tribunal has rejected the claim of applicant no. 2 and has awarded compensation of Rs.1,32,000/- against the opponents no. 1 to 3 together with proportionate costs and interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization.

3. As per the award, the learned Tribunal has adopted 55 years age of the deceased for the purpose of calculation of compensation. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the appellants have produced village Form No. 7-12 & 8-A at Ex. 26 & 27, and considering the above documents and looking to the nature of the work, the learned Tribunal adopted Rs.3000/- monthly income for the purpose of calculation of compensation, out of this, ? deduction Rs.1000/- as a pocket expenses, so, Rs.3000-1000 = Rs.2000/-. The learned Tribunal has rejected the claim of original applicant no. 2 on the ground that he is the adult son of the deceased and was not falling within the purview of dependent. The Tribunal further held that so far as dependency is only for applicant no. 1 i.e. wife of deceased and she was 50 years old, therefore, the learned Tribunal has adopted 5 multiplier. So Rs.2000 X 12 = 24000, 24000 x 5 = 1,20,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.10000/- under the head of consortium and Rs.2000/- as a funeral procedure after the death of the deceased. So, in all, the compensation of Rs.1,32,000/- was awarded along with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the application till its realization.

4. It goes without saying that the learned Tribunal has committed manifest error in granting multiplier of 5 though the admitted age of the deceased was in the bracket of 52 to 60 and the multiplier as admissible is 9. The aforesaid finding cannot be sustained, the reason being that even as per the decision of Sarla Verma v. DTC, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 : AIR 2009 SC 3104, Column No. 4 states and hold that the person of the age of 56 years will get the multiplier of 9. The rate of interest shall be 7.5%. The learned Tribunal ought to have at least gone through the decision of Sarla Verma v. DTC, reported in (2009)6 SCC 121 : AIR 2009 SC 3104.

5. The learned Tribunal has shown his negligence of the provisions of Sec.166 of the M.V. Act. Section 166 of the MV Act, reads as under:

166. Application for compensation.- (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made -

(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or

(b) by the owner of the property; or

(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or

(d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:

Provided 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.

6. The terminology in section 166 defining the persons who are entitled for compensation. The word 'dependent' is not there, on the contrary, it speaks only of the legal representatives of the deceased, and therefore, son would be of legal representative.

7. This takes this Court to the next issue. The learned Tribunal has grossly erred in rejecting the claim of appellant no. 2 on the ground that appe