1. The Insurance Company has filed this appeal against the award of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Kallakurichi dated 12. 96 in MCOP.395 of 1996.

2. The respondents 1 to 4 herein filed the said claim petition, claiming a compensation of Rs.l lakh for the death of one Muthammal. The deceased is the mother of the claimants. She died on 7. 92 at 11.30 a.m. in a road accident,since the tempo bearing Registration No.TCF 4437 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased. It is the case of the claimants that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tempo by the driver and hence the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.

3. The appellant herein resisted the claim of the claimants, contending that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased Muthammal, since she suddenly crossed the road. The driver of the vehicle had driven the vehicle in a careful manner and the accident did not take place in the manner in which it was put forth by the claimants.

4. The Tribunal, after careful consideration of the evidence available on record, awarded the compensation of Rs.l lakh. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.

5. In the appeal, the only contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the claimants are married sons and daughters of the deceased and hence they are not entitled for any compensation for the loss of dependence. They are not the dependents of the deceased. However, they will be entitled for the no fault amount alone. Since the Insurance Company has filed the appeal, they are not entitled to question the quantum of compensation.

6. The short question involved is whether the claimants who are married sons and married daughters are entitled for the compensation?

7. Though in the memorandum of grounds in this appeal this plea has been taken and the counsel has also advanced argument, a perusal of the counter filed by the appellant before the Tribunal as well as the perusal of the award of the Tribunal reveals that this issue has not been raised before the Tribunal. But, however, since the liability of the Insurance Company as well as the entitlement of the compensation by the married children of the deceased arises, I thought it is better to give a finding on this issue and hence allowed the counsel for the appellant to raise the plea.

8. To consider this question, it is necessary that the provision of Motor Vehicles Act is to be looked into. Section 110 of the old Act is corresponding to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, The same is as follows:-

“766. 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.”

In accordance with Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in a case of death, all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased is entitled to file to claim petition. Proviso to the said sub- section further makes it clear that where all the legal representatives have not joined, then the application can be made on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased by impleading those legal representatives as the respondents. The term ‘legal representative’ u sed