The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'legal representatives' under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the principles of adoption, which determined the entitlement for compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Krishnan Ramasamy, J. - The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2006 passed in MCOP No. 204 of 2004 by the learned Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2 (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Tuticorin.

2. The facts in a nutshell are as follows:

On 9.2.2004 at about 7 a.m., when the petitioner along with his wife and daughter Anandha Sheeba was travelling in a vehicle bearing registration No. TN 69-E 1444 from south to north on the left side of the road near South Pandiapuram corner, at that time, the respondent No. 1 drove the vehicle bearing registration No. TN 69-C 2563 in a rash and negligent manner from north to south and dashed against the petitioners' vehicle and in that accident the petitioners and their daughter Anandha Sheeba were thrown away from the vehicle and sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, they were taken to Government Hospital, Tuticorin and the petitioners' daughter Anandha Sheeba was declared dead due to the accident. Therefore, the petitioners have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000.

3. The respondent No. 2-insurance company has filed counter and opposed stating that the petitioners cannot claim compensation for their adopted child and as long as the biological father is alive, the present petitioners cannot make any claim for the death of the deceased Anandha Sheeba due to the reason that the adoption is legally not valid.

4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the petitioners, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exhs. P1 to P19 were marked. On the side of the respondents, RW 1 was examined and no documentary evidence was marked.

5. After hearing both the parties, the court below found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. TN 69-E 1444 and had fixed the entire liability on the respondent No. 1. Since the respondent No. 1 vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 2, the court below fixed joint and several liability against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

6. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the court below has refused to accept the contention of the appellants that they are the legal representatives of the deceased Anandha Sheeba and the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000 to the biological father, who was the respondent No. 3 in the claim petition. Though the respondent No. 3, the biological father, has not filed any claim petition, he was impleaded as one of the respondents and the court below awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000 as compensation by determining the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000 p.a. and applying multiplier of 15, awarded a sum of Rs. 45,000 for loss of income and Rs. 5,000 towards funeral expenses of the deceased and rejected the claim made by the appellants. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants herein filed the present appeal.

7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

8. The issues to be decided in the present appeal are as follows:

(i) Whether the appellants are legal representatives of the deceased when the biological father is alive?

(ii) Whether the appellants are entitled for compensation?

(iii) Whether the court below is justified in rejecting the claim made by the appellants?

9. Before deciding the issue No. (i), it is just and necessary to mention the brief facts of the adoption of the deceased Anandha Sheeba by the appellants herein.

10. When the deceased Anandha Sheeba was 1 years old, her mother Shunmugakani alias Kani died on 9.5.1993 leaving behind her husband (respondent No. 3 herein) and the deceased Anandha Sheeba. The biological father of the deceased, viz., Jebakumar, the respondent No. 3 herein, handed over the child to the appellant No. 2, who is the sister of the mother of the deceased Anandha Sheeba by way of adoption as per the customary practice. Subsequently, the said Jebakumar, the biological father of the deceased, got remarried to one Jessy Roase Suseela on 27.1