The legal representatives need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent, or child, and claimants can be entitled to compensation even if they are major sons of the deceased.

Surinder Gupta, J.

This judgment will dispose of above captioned appeals filed against award dated 04.02.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (later referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/-for the damages to the shop of claimants and another compensation of Rs. 1,78,000/-for the death of mother of claimants in the motor accident.

2. The case of claimants, in brief, is that on 30.10.2011 at about 08.30 p.m., Shakuntala Devi (since deceased) their mother was sitting on wooden bench in front of her karyana store at village Bakali, when combine bearing registration no. HR-05V-3269 came from Mustfabad side. It was being driven by respondent no. 1-Karambir son of Kartara Ram in a rash and negligent manner. He hit Shakuntala Devi and then front portion of the shop of claimants as a result of which Shakuntala Devi suffered injuries and was taken to CHC, Ladwa. After first aid, she was shifted to LNJP Hospital, Kurukshetra, where she succumbed to her injuries.

3. The claimants alleged that they have suffered loss of Rs. 1,38,000/-due to damages to the shop and of Rs. 27,730/-of the material lying in the shop. They also suffered loss in business as the shop was closed due to damage . Deceased Shakuntala Devi was 55 years of age. She was shopkeeper and engaged in dairy farming thereby earning Rs. 20,000/-per month. A sum of Rs. 30,000/- was spent on her treatment and last rites.

4. In the written statement filed by respondents no. 1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle, the accident and involvement of the vehicle in accident was denied. It was alleged that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3.

5. The Insurance Company in its separate written statement denied the accident resulting into any loss to the shop, material lying there or causing death of Shakuntala Devi. It was alleged that in order to extort money the offending vehicle was falsely involved by the claimants.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the Tribunal with their assistance.

FAO No. 3367 of 2013 (Compensation for the death of Shakuntala Devi, mother of claimants)

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the deceased was running a karyana shop and was having the income of Rs. 20,000/-. However, the Tribunal has not taken note of this fact and has assessed her income as Rs. 3000/- per month, which is less than the income that can be assessed even for a house-wife. The Tribunal has also not allowed any compensation towards loss of love and affection and funeral expenses allowed as Rs. 10,000/-are also on lower side.

8. Learned counsel for respondent no. 3-Insurance Company has argued that the decease was 65 years of age. There was no evidence that she was doing any business. Her ration card, placed on record by claimants, shows that her income was below poverty line (BPL), as such, the Tribunal has rightly assessed her income as Rs. 3000/-per month and after making 1/3rd deduction towards her personal expenses, the compensation was rightly assessed by the Tribunal. Even otherwise, claimants are major sons of the deceased and were not dependent on her income, as such, are not entitled to any compensation except the compensation for no fault liability.

9. In case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, AIR 1987 (SC) 1690, it was observed that a legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child. The claimants, though, are major still for all type of assistance and guidance were dependent on their mother, who was living with them. Even otherwise, the Insurance Company has not come up with appeal against the award of compensation to claimants for the death of their mother, as assessed