The main legal point established is that under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the definition of 'Legal Representative' is inclusive and entitles the parents of the deceased to claim compensation, regardless of dependency.

M.Y. Eqbal, Chief Justice.

1. This Appeal by the Claimants-Appellants is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Salem in M.C.O.P. No.553 of 1999, whereby a consolidated amount of Rs.80,000/-has been awarded as compensation in favour of 2nd and 3rd Petitioners viz., the 2nd and 3rd Respondent herein, who are the mother and father of the deceased.

2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.

The Appellants filed the Claim Petition for the grant of compensation on account of death one Babu Shankar while he was traveling in a Tata Sierra Car bearing Registration No.TN-01-K4878 from Salem to Bangalore along with his friends. The 1st Appellant was the wife and the 2nd and 3rd Appellants are the parents of the deceased Babu Shankar. When the Car was proceeding on Krishnagiri-Hosur National Highway at Guruparapalli Junction Road near the bridge at Bharatha Koil a Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-01-A7254 came in the opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the Car in which the deceased Babu Shankar was traveling. Due to the said impact the car was badly damaged and it fell in the slope of 20 ft. and the said Babu Shankar died instantaneously due to the severe injuries sustained by him. The deceased was 25 years at the time of his death. He was the full time Director of Sambandam Spinning Mills Limited and working partner in Parameswari Textiles. The Claimants’ case was that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.30,000/-per month from Sambandam Spinning Mills Limited. He was also allowed to the medical benefit to the extent of Rs.30,000/-per annum apart from other benefits. The Claimants’ further case was that the deceased Babu Shankar studied M.B.A. degree in United States of America and he was an able administrator.

3. The Claimants’ case was contested only by the 2nd Respondent-Insurer of the lorry. The Respondent-Insurer denied the occurrence of the accident in the manner alleged by the Claimants. It is alleged by the 2nd Respondent-Insurance Company that the driver of the Tata Sierra Car was driving the Car rashly and negligently and caused the accident. Various other defences were also taken by the Insurance Company.

4. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties formulated the following issues:

(1) Whether the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the Lorry driver belonging to the First Respondent or it occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Car driver belonging to the Third Respondent?

(2) If so, to what amount of compensation the Petitioners are entitled to?

5. It is worth mentioning here that the Claimants/Appellants examined three witnesses and produced various documentary evidence, but no oral or documentary evidence was produced on the side of the Respondent.

6. While deciding Issue No.1 the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the Lorry driver and it could not be due to the negligence of the Car driver. Accordingly, the Lorry owner and the Insurer of the Lorry are liable to pay the compensation.

7. However, while deciding Issue No.2 the Tribunal found that after the death of the deceased Babu Shankar the Claimant No.1-Widow remarried her husband’s brother one Vijay Shankar and now she is residing at Fairlands belonging to Vijay Shankar, who is also a partner of Sambandam Mill. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the Claimant No.1 viz., the 1st Appellant herein is no longer a Legal Representative or dependent of the deceased Babu Shankar in view of her re-marriage with Vijay Shankar.

8. The Tribunal further held that the father of the deceased, who is the 3rd Appellant herein, cannot be a legal heir of the deceased to claim compensation amount as dependant, that too when he is continuing as a Partner in a business concern, and there is no decrease of income from the said Firm. However, the Trib