Legal representatives under the Motor Vehicles Act must be interpreted broadly to include those dependent on the deceased, not solely legal heirs.

JUDGMENT :

K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.

1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the common order passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.271 of 2011 and 544 of 2011 dated 27.07.2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Court for E.C. & NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai.

2. The appellant in both the appeals is the insurer. The respondents 1 and 2 in both the appeals are the claimants. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein will be referred to as per their status/ranking in the Tribunal.

3. Both the claim petitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.271 and 544 of 2011 came to be filed claiming compensation for the death of one Balamurugan, consequent to an accident occurred on 12.11.2010. The Tribunal, after conducting joint trial of both the cases, has passed an common order dated 27.07.2016 holding that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent's driver and consequently mulcted liability on the second respondent/insurer directing them to pay compensation of Rs.16,87,500/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) to the claimants in both the claim petitions and the respondents 3 and 4 in M.C.O.P.No.544 of 2011.

4. The first claimant in both the claim petitions, claiming to be the wife of the deceased Balamurugan, have filed separate claim petitions along with their child claiming compensation for the death of their husband Balamurugan. The Tribunal, upon perusing the evidence available on record, has given a finding that the first claimant Gunasundhari in M.C.O.P.No.544 of 2011 (hereinafter called as the said Gunasundhari) is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Balamurugan, that the first claimant Anbuchithra in M.C.O.P.No.271 of 2011 (hereinafter called as the said Anbuchithra) is the second wife of the deceased Balamurugan, that the second claimant in both the claim petitions are the children born to the deceased Balamurugan and that the respondents 3 and 4 in M.C.O.P.No. 544 of 2011 are the parents of the deceased Balamurugan and all of them are entitled to get compensation.

5. The second respondent/insurer has preferred the present two appeals challenging the decision of the Tribunal in granting compensation to the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.271 of 2011 on the ground that they cannot be considered as legal heirs nor legal representatives of the deceased Balamurugan.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/insurer would submit that the said Anbuchithra is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased Balamurugan, that the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.271 of 2011 are not the legal heirs of the deceased Balamurugan and they do not have any relationship with the deceased Balamurugan, that both of them cannot also be considered as legal representatives of the deceased Balamurugan and that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the evidence of P.W.2- legally wedded wife of the deceased Balamurugan and held that the said Anbuchithra is not the wife of the deceased Balamurugan and as such, she is not entitled to get any compensation.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/insurer would further submit that the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/5^th of the salary towards personal and living expenses of the deceased Balamurugan by adding the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.271 of 2011 as the dependents of the deceased Balamurugan and the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3^rd of the salary considering the fact that the deceased Balamurugan had left the claimants and the respondents 3 and 4 in M.C.O.P.No.544 of 2011.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.544 of 2011 would reiterate th