The main legal point established in the judgment is that legal representatives, even if not dependents, may be entitled to claim compensation for loss of estate and dependency under the Motor Vehicles Act.

S. MANIKUMAR, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the finding regarding negligence fixed oh the driver of the Van, bearing Registration No. TN 45 0126, owned by the third respondent and insured with the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company, Coimbatore, and the quantum of compensation awarded to the respondents 1 and 2, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company. According to the appellant-Insurance Company, the claim petition itself is not maintainable, as the respondents/claimants were not dependents on the income of the deceased.

2 Facts leading to the appeal are as follows:

Respondents 1 and 2/claimants, aged 57 and 50 years, claiming themselves to be the brother and sister of the deceased, have stated that on 15.8.2000, about 15.15 Hours, when their sister/deceased was walking on Metturpalayam to Nellidurai Road, near Amman Virunthinar Mandapam, in front of Sukku Coffee Shop, Mettupalayam, a van bearing Registration No. TN 45 0126, owned by the third respondent and insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came in the same direction, dashed against their sister, Marakkal and though she was given intensive treatment in Government Hospital, Mettupalayam, she died. It is the case of the respondent/ claimant that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 55 years and as a coolie, earned ` 3,000/.-per month. FIR was lodged and that a case in Cr. No. 524 of 2000 has also been registered against the driver of the Van, under Section 304 (A) IPC, on the. file of the Mettupalayam Police Station. Claiming themselves to be the legal representatives and dependent oh the income of the deceased, the respondents/claimants have preferred a claim petition for compensation of ` 5,00,000/-.

3 The owner of the van remained ex parte, before the Tribunal.

4 Disputing the manner of accident, the appellant-Insurance Company inter alia contended that the accident has occurred due to the contributory negligence or the deceased, who without noticing the van, coming on the road, had suddenly crossed the road and invited the accident and therefore, they submitted that the award should be apportioned, if it is proved that the Insurance Policy of the said van was valid and effective at the time of accident. They also submitted that the respondents/claimants have to prove the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. In addition to the above, the Company also submitted that the driver of the van did not have any valid and effective driving licence to drive the particular type of vehicle, which was involved in the accident. The abovesaid act is in violation of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Without prejudice to the above, they also disputed the age, avocation,, income of the deceased and the compensation claimed under various heads. The appellant-Insurance Company also filed an additional counter affidavit, contending inter alia, that the deceased was aged more than 60 years and not 55 years, at the time of accident, as alleged in the claim petition and that the deceased was not a coolie, but a beggar and used to get only ` 30/-per day. It is also their contention that as the respondents/claimants are not dependents of the deceased, they are not entitled to make a claim for compensation.

5 Before the Tribunal, bother of the deceased examined himself as P.W.l and reiterated the manner of accident. P.W.2, is said to be the eye-witness. Exhibit P-1 -FIR, Exhibit 2 -Motor Vehicles Inspector ‘ s Report, Exhibit P-3 -Post-Mortem Certificate and Exhibit P-4 -Legal Heir Certificate were marked on the side of the respondents/claimants. No oral and documentary evidence has been let in on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company.

6 The Tribunal, on evaluation of pleadings and evidence, found that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the van, owned by the third respondent and insured with the