Compensation of Rs. 50000/- awarded under "no fault liability" in terms of section 140 of the Act.

An interesting question is involved in this appeal. By the impugned Judgment, the Tribunal has held that brother and sisters of deceased Vanniyaraj are not entitled to compensation, as they are not his dependants.

2. Brief facts as set out in the claim petition are as follows: - On 012. 1992 at about

1. 55 p.m., the deceased boarded the Corporation bus TDN – 01 N 1530 at Tambaram bus depot and at that time, the bus driver has started the bus negligently, which resulted in collision with the standing PTC bus TN 01 N 1531, which caused fall of the deceased, resulting in fatal injuries to Vanniyaraj. Vanniyaraj sustained fracture injuries in ribs, chest injuries and multiple injuries. He was admitted in Government Hospital, Madras, where he succumbed to the injuries on 012. 1992.

3. Alleging that death was due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver, wife of Vanniyaraj – Malliga has filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,13,300/-. During the pendency of the Petition, Malliga also passed away. Brother and sisters of

deceased Vanniyaraj – appellants, were impleaded. Under various heads – loss of dependency and love and affection, appellants have claimed compensation.

4. Tribunal has held that accident was due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver. However, the Tribunal held that the appellants are brother and sisters of Vanniyaraj who were already married and were not dependent upon the deceased and held they are not entitled to compensation and the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition.

5. Challenging the impugned order, the learned Counsel for the Appellant placed reliance upon AIR 1987 SC 1690 [Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabahatbhai and Anr.] and has contended that brother and sisters of a person who died in a motor vehicles accident are entitled to maintain a Petition under Section 110-A, if they are legal representatives of the deceased. It was further submitted that the claim of compensation need not be restricted to only legal heirs. Placing reliance upon 2004 ACJ 53 (SC) [Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer and Anr.], the learned Counsel further submitted that the deceased was aged 30 years at the time of accident and therefore, multiplier of 16 is to be adopted and contended that appellants would be entitled to compensation of Rs.3,06,000/-.

6. The learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation supported the Judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that the appellants cannot be said to be dependants on the deceased Vanniyaraj.

7. Similar question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in 2007 AIR SCW 1962 [Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.] in which the question involved was whether married daughter would be entitled to compensation. Observing that liability in such cases would be limited to no fault liability and the married daughter would be entitled to recover compensation of no fault liability, the Supreme Court has held as under :-

"11. The Tribunal has a duty to make an award, determine the amount of compensation which is just and proper and specify the person or persons to whom such compensation would be paid. The latter part relates to the entitlement of compensation by a person who claims for the same.

12. According to Section 2(11) of 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 it the definition of legal representative under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, i.e. under Section 2(1)(g).

13. As observed by this Court in Custodian of Branches of BANCO National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique (AIR 1989 SC 1589), the definition contained in Section 2(11) CPC is inclusive in character and its scope is wide, i