The main legal point established in the judgment is that the concept of legal representative and dependency loss under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, should be interpreted in a wider context, considering the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and the principle of just compensation.

JUDGMENT :

1. Challenge in these appeals is given to a common judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar (the Tribunal) on 31.12.2018 in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 217 of 2014 and 218 of 2014 (claim petition). The claimants are married daughters of deceased parents, who, on 15.05.2014 were going from Bhavnagar to Surat in a Car bearing registration No. GJ-5-CM-2986. The said car was driven by father – Shamjibhai. It is stated that he was driving the car slowly and on correct side of the road and the mother was the occupant in the said car. It is further stated that while the car was heading forward, a luxury bus No. GJ-5-AZ-2970, being driven in rash and negligent manner and in full speed, dashed with the car. Both got injured and succumbed to the severe injuries.

2. The learned Tribunal was pleased to grant compensation as under:

Head MACP No. 217 of 2014 MACP No. 218 of 2014

Future loss of income 2,37,000/- 2,90,400/-

Loss of estate 15,000/- 15,000/-

Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 15,000/-

Total 2,67,600/- 3,20,400/

3. Learned advocate Mr. Sunil B. Parikh for the appellant - insurance company contended that both the claimants, as married daughters, cannot be considered as dependents of the parents and hence, the amount granted under the head of future loss of income/dependency loss, is erroneous and illegal. Learned advocate Mr. Parikh relied upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court, rendered in First Appeal No. 1850 of 2019 in TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kunjal Jitendra Joshi with allied matters, on 13.05.2022 and the decision in First Appeal No. 177 of 2011 dated 22.02.2017 between Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mahadevbhai Gandabhai Koli and 7 and the decision in First Appeal No. 2255 of 2020 between Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bipinbhai Muljibhai Padhiyar dated 21.12.2022 to contend that married daughters would be entitled to file the petition as heirs and legal representatives but would not be entitled to compensation as they are not dependents on the parents under the head of loss of dependency.

4. Countering the arguments, learned advocate Mr. Jenil M. Shah for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, by relying on decisions in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender and Ors., (2020) 11 SCC 356; in Manjuri Bera (Smt.) v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., (2007) 10 SCC 643 and in Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Ltd. v. Thakor Jayantibhai Piraji, 2022 ACJ 902 submitted that with the development in the Hindu Succession Act and the personal laws, the concept of dependency has merged into the expression ‘legal representative’ and stated that, now, there would not be any difference between a daughter and a son to exclude them as being the legal representatives. Learned advocate Mr. Shah submitted that in a case when a son has not been found to be an earning member of the family or is earning less than the parents, the son is also considered as a dependent and when the daughters are not found to be an earning person, then they, as legal representatives, would be entitled to even the dependency loss.

4.1 In Manjuri Bera (supra), the Apex Court has laid down the meaning of ‘legal representative’ referred to in Section 2(11) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) in paragraph 11, which reads as under:

“According to Section 2(11) CPC, "legal representative" means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. Almost in similar terms is the definition of legal representative under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, i.e. under Section 2(1)(g).”

4.2 Thereafter, in the same judgment, referring to the decisions of Custodian of Branches of BANCO National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 275, the definition of ‘legal r