The main legal point established in the judgment is the wider meaning of legal representative and its inclusion of dependents, emphasizing the dependency as the criteria for awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgement and decree passed in MCOP.No.255 of 2011 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Madurai dated 13.04.2018 and also to allot the share of the deceased Karuppaiah to other petitioners.)

The appeal has been filed by the claimants challenging the rejection of award for the petitioners 2 to 5 and granting of award in favour of the 3rd respondent in the claim petition.

Factual Background:

2. According to the claimants, the deceased Mayilsamy was travelling in a two wheeler with the third respondent as a pillion rider on 13.06.2010. A Car coming from the opposite direction belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent had dashed against the motor bike in which the driver of the bike had sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot and the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries.

3.According to the claimants, the deceased working as a Ticket Checker and he was running a Fancy Store and he was earning a sum of Rs.11,500/- per month. The first claimant is the wife and the claimants 2 to 5 are the children and the 6th claimant was the father of the deceased. The claimants have further contended that the 3rd respondent in the claim petition is alleged to be the second wife and the fourth respondent is alleged to be the minor son of the deceased through the second wife. The claimants have prayed for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards compensation.

4. The owner of the car had remained exparte and the Insurance Company had filed a counter contending that only due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased person, the accident has taken place and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. The Insurance Company had further disputed the fact that the deceased was a Ticket Checker at Jeyavilas Transport, Madurai and also disputed the fact that he was running a Fancy Store. The Insurance Company had further contended that it is for the claimants to establish that the driver of the Car had got a valid driving license and insured at the time of accident. The Insurance Company had further disputed the quantum of compensation.

5. The respondents 3 and 4 had filed a counter contending that the marriage of the deceased with the first claimant was divorced by way of an execution of divorce agreement and thereafter, the deceased got married to the third respondent and out of the said wedlock, the fourth respondent was born. They have further contended that the respondents 3 and 4 were completely depending upon the income of the deceased. Since the deceased had obtained divorce from the first petitioner, he had no relationship with the petitioners. Even at the time of accident, the deceased was travelling in a two wheeler only with the third respondent as a pillion rider. Since she had sustained grievous injuries, she had filed MCOP.No.239 of 2012 seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by her.

6. The Tribunal had tagged both the claim petitions and passed a common order. In MCOP.No.239 of 2012, which was filed by the injured claimant (second wife) an award of Rs.30,000/- was passed. As against the same, no appeal has been filed by any one of the parties.

7. In MCOP.No.255 of 2011, the first wife and her children and the father of the deceased are claimants. The second wife and the son born through the second wife are arrayed as respondents 3 and 4.

8. The Tribunal after considering Exhibits P7 to P10 filed in MCOP.No.239 of 2012 arrived at a finding that the third respondent in MCOP.No.255 of 2011 is also a dependent. Though she may not be a legal representative, she is also a dependent and she is entitled to share in the compensation.

9. The Tribunal further found that the fourth respondent is born to the deceased through the third respondent based upon the birth certificate Exhibit P7. The Tribunal arrived at a total compensation of Rs.11,59,000/-. Out of