An interesting question of law that arises in the appeal is, whether the unfortunate parents, who lost their married daughter in a road accident, are entitled to compensation for the death of their daughter.

2. In this case, the daughter of the appellant - parents, her husband, her minor son, her mother-in-law, her brother-in-law (husbands brother) and his wife travelled in an Ambassador Car. The ill-fated Car had a head on collision with a tourist bus on 15.03.2002. In that accident, the aforesaid entire family members died. One vehicle was registered with the second respondent - Insurance Company at Ramanathapuram and another vehicle was insured with the same Insurance Company at Nagercoil. The father of the son-in-law of the appellants (since the mother of the son-in-law also died in the accident) claimed compensation and he was granted compensation for the loss of his son. But, the same yardstick was not applied when the appellants herein claimed compensation for the loss of their daughter. Their M.C.O.P.No.940 of 2002 was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that they were not the legal representatives after marriage and that after marriage, the heirs of the deceased husband alone are the legal representatives of the married daughter, by an order dated 28.04.2004. The relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal in para 9 of its order is extracted hereunder:

TAMIL

3. When the matter was listed for final hearing, considering the importance of the issues involved in this case, this Court appointed a young and energetic Advocate Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff as an Amicus Curiae to render assistance in this matter. Ms.N.Krishnaveni, a woman lawyer, volunteered herself in this case considering the issues involved herein and made her submissions.

4. Ms.N.Krishnaveni, the learned counsel submitted that Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act permits a legal representative of a deceased to file a claim petition, seeking compensation. She further submitted that the word legal representative is not defined in the Motor Vehicles Act and she refers to Section 2(11) of the Civil Procedure Code, wherein, the word legal representative is defined. She proceeded further that the question as to whether the brother of a person who is killed in the motor accident can claim compensation was considered by the Honourable Apex Court in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad Vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another reported in 1987 (3) SCC 234. The Honourable Apex Court considered in detail the issue, in the light of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure and held that the brother could maintain a claim petition. Therefore, she submitte that there could not be any difficulty in maintaining the application by the parents, if the brother could maintain a claim application. She submitted that Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 provides that wife, husband, parents and children of the deceased person could initiate action or sue claiming compensation for the death. The learned counsel also submitted that the Honourable Apex Court took note of the fact that when the Law Commission suggested to define the word legal representative in terms of Fatal Accidents Act to include wife, husband, parents and children alone, the parliament in its wisdom declined to amend, in terms of the recommendations of the Law Commission. Accordingly, the word legal representative as it stands has wider meaning, not confining itself to the spouse, parents and children of the deceased. In this regard, she refers to para 15 of the said judgment, which reads as follows:

"15. Before concluding we may add that although the Act was extensively modified after the receipt of the report of the Law Commission, Parliament did not choose to amend Section 110-A of the Act by defining the expression "legal representatives" in relation to claims under Chapter VIII of the Act as "the spouse, parent and children of the deceased" as recommen