Legal representatives, including brothers of the deceased, are entitled to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the term 'legal representative' should be given a wider interpretation to serve the legislative intent of the Act.

ORDER :

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant – New India Assurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Insurance Company") under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1988") against the judgment dated 09.08.2007 (hereinafter referred to as “impugned judgment”) passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kishangarhbas, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No.75/2001 (Dori Lal & Ors. Vs. Sunder Singh & Ors.).

2. As per the brief facts of the case, one Ishwar Prasad (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") died in a road accident on 10.07.2001. At the time of his death, the deceased was unmarried and was of 21 years of age. The respondents-claimants, namely, Dori Lal, Lala Ram, Daya Ram & Rampal are real brothers of the deceased, who filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act of 1988, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.23,26,600/-.

3. The claim petition was contested by the appellant -Insurance Company.

4. After evaluating the evidence, produced on behalf of the respondents-claimants, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and compensation of Rs.3,41,400/-was awarded in favour of the respondents-claimants.

5. The appellant -Insurance Company has filed the present appeal on the ground that the deceased was unmarried, of 21 years of age and the respondents-claimants are elder brothers of the deceased, therefore, they cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased, hence, they were not entitled for any compensation. Accordingly, on the aforesaid ground itself, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellant -Insurance Company has also taken a ground that the respondents-claimants, at the most, were entitled for the compensation under the conventional head only and the learned Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.3,41,400/-under the head of loss of dependency. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award is liable to be quashed.

7. While drawing attention of this Court to the law laid by the Apex Court in the case of Manjuri Bera Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. [2007 ACJ 1279], learned counsel for the appellant -Insurance Company has argued that the respondents-claimants, who are elder brothers of the deceased, cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased, therefore, they are not entitled for any amount under the head of loss of dependency. However, they are entitled only to the amount, which is confined only to the "no fault liability" under Section 140 of the Act of 1988.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submitted that the claim petition can be brought by the legal representatives of the deceased.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submitted that Section 166 of the Act of 1988 does not limit rights to claim compensation to the dependents only.

10. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents-claimants are brothers of the deceased, therefore, they are legal heirs of the deceased. Hence, they are entitled for compensation under Section 166 of the Act of 1988.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has drawn attention of this Court to the law, laid down by the Apex Court on the following judgments :

(i) Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmadabad Vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & Anr. [1987 (3) SCC 234] ;

(ii) Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance & Anr. [2014(3) SCC 394] ;

(iii) Malliga Vs. Diamond Abraham & Anr. [Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2368/2015, decided on 24.09.2018] ;

(iv) National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender & Anr. [(2020) AIR (SC) 434] ;

(v) N.Jayasree & Ors. Vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. [Civil Appeal No.6451/2021, decided on 25.10.2021] ;

12. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material, available on record.

13. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to q