The judgment reaffirmed the broad interpretation of 'legal representative' under the Motor Vehicles Act and emphasized the principles of dependency and negligence in determining compensation.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present First Appeal is preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.1597 of 1998, Vadodara dated 27.06.2015, by which the Tribunal has awarded the amount of compensation Rs.5,38,468/- with 9% interest p.a. from the date of the claim petition to the claimants by holding the Opponent Nos.1, 2 & 3 jointly and severely liable and against the Opponent Nos. 4 & 5, the claim is rejected. Therefore, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

2. The brief facts of the case are as such that, on 04.02.1998, the Deceased-Raman Sundaresan Pillai was one of the occupants in the Jeep bearing registration No. GJ-16-C-4202 proceeding towards Rajpipla from GSL (India) Limited, from its work and registered office at Amletha village, Taluka Rajpipla, and the driver of the said Jeep was driving the Jeep at a moderate speed and on the correct side of the road to Rajpipla and when, they had reached near Taropa village bus stand board, the Opponent No.1 had come from the opposite direction by driving the truck bearing registration No.GJ-3-U-5020 in rash and negligent manner and also in excessive speed which resulted into the accident as the Opponent No.1 has lost his control over the steering of the truck. Therefore, the truck rushed on the wrong side of the road and dashed against the right front portion of the Jeep. Therefore, the Jeep was turned turtle resultantly, the Deceased-Raman sustained serious injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, legal representatives of the deceased has filed the claim petition to get compensation. F.I.R is filed against the Opponent No.1 and charge-sheet is also filed against the Opponent No.1 before the concerned Court. The Deceased-Raman was aged about 30 years at the time of accident and he was serving as a Steno cum typist with GSL (India) Ltd. Amletha, Taluka Rajpipla and he was paid a monthly salary of Rs.3200/- plus HRA at the rate of 20%, PF at the rate of 10% of basic salary, LTA at the rate of 4% of the basic salary, medical allowance at the rate of 5% of the basic salary and he was also entitled to bonus at the rate of 8.33% of basic salary. Therefore, it is averred by the claimants in the petition that his salary can be considered at least Rs.3,500/- p.m. and his annual income would be Rs.63,515/- and the prospective annual income could be easily assessed to the tune of Rs.90,000/- p.a. Therefore, the claim petition is filed to get compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.

2.1 The Tribunal has issued notices to the Opponents. The Opponent Nos. 1, 2 & 4 have not appeared before the Tribunal to contest the claim petition. In response to the notice, Opponent No.3-Oriental Insurance Company has appeared and contested the claim by filing written statement at Exh. 24 by denying the claim of the claimants in toto. In response to the notice, the Opponent No.5 – New India Assurance Com. Ltd. has contested the claim petition by filing written statement at Exh.33 and denied the claim in toto. Thereafter, the Tribunal has proceeded further by framing issues from the pleadings of the parties for its determination. The claimant No.4 – R. Mohanan Pillai has also deposed before the Tribunal at Exh.40, who was cross-examined by the advocate for the Insurance Company and documentary evidence like copy of the F.I.R at Exh.46 & 53, copy of panchnama at Exh.54, copy of inquest panchnama at Exh. 55, copy of P.M. report at Exh.47 and 56, copy of appointment letter of deceased issued by GSL (India) at Exh.43, original slip of salary drawn by the deceased at Exh.45 and the Opponent No.5 had also produced copy of insurance policy in respect of Jeep bearing registration No.GJ-16-C-4202 at Exh.52. Thereafter, the Tribunal has heard the advocates of respective parties and decided the claim petition by holding Opponent Nos. 1, 2 and 3