Legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, and even if there is no loss of dependency, the claimant, if a legal representative, will be entitled to compensation.

JUDGMENT

Archana Puri, J. - Challenge in the present appeal is to the Award dated 15.04.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby, compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.25,000/- each) has been granted to the married daughters of deceased Darshan Singh, who had died in a motor vehicular accident on 11.01.2009.

2. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that claim petition was initially, filed by Mariam Ester and her sons, Mandeep Singh and Navdeep Singh, thereby, seeking compensation, on account of Darshan Singh, in a motor vehicular accident. However, during the pendency of the said claim petition, in pursuance of an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, filed by married daughters of the deceased Darshan Singh, both the married daughters, namely Ravinder Kaur and Kamaljit Kaur, were impleaded as respondents No.5 and 6, in the claim petition. So far as, taking place of the accident is concerned, this fact is not disputed by the contesting respondents No.1 to 3 i.e. driver, State of Punjab, Department of Punjab and Punjab Roadways Transport Corporation. They have though admitted about the accident but they imputed, rashness and negligence, on the part of deceased Darshan Singh. However, suffice to mention that the Tribunal had reached the conclusion about the accident to be result of rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No.PB-10BR07837, driven by respondent No.1. This finding has not been challenged by respondents No.1 to 3, by way of filing any appeal or revision. Thus, the findings of the Tribunal, relating to the accident having caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driven by respondent No.1, has attained finality.

3. Also, it is pertinent to mention that in the Award, it has been concluded by the Tribunal that present respondents No.4 to 6, are not the wife or sons of deceased Darshan Singh. This finding has also not been challenged by respondents No.4 to 6 (who were claimants before the Tribunal) by way of filing appeal or revision, if any. As such, this finding has also attained finality.

4. Vide Award dated 15.04.2014, respondents No.5 and 6 in the claim petition i.e. Ravinder Kaur and Kamaljit Kaur, who are married daughters of the deceased, a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded, on account of love and affection i.e. to the extent of Rs.25,000/- each and liability has been fastened upon respondents No.1 to 3, jointly and severally, to pay the award amount. Besides the same, also respondents No.5 and 6 were held entitled to amount of compensation along with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of claim petition, till the date of realization.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid Award, Kamaljit Kaur (who was impleaded as respondent No.6 before the Tribunal) who is married daughter of deceased Darshan Singh, had filed the present appeal.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation ought to be granted to the married daughters, who were entitled to estate of the deceased.

7. It is pertinent to mention that Kamaljit Kaur herself had stepped into witness box as RW-2 and her affidavit tendered into evidence is Ex.RA. Therein, besides deposing about her relationship with deceased Darshan Singh, has also deposed that age of the deceased Darshan Singh was 55 years and he was working in Military Engineering Service and was getting salary of Rs.30,000/- per month. She also deposed that deceased was spending the amount upon her and her sister, till death. This is the entire evidence coming on record, at the instance of respondents No.5 and 6, in the claim petition.

8. Now, none is contesting the present appeal.

9. Before the Tribunal, relationship of the appellant with the deceased, as such, is not disputed. It should be noted that the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act has not been filed by the appellant. Rather, it had been filed by one Mariam Ester and her sons, Mandeep Singh and Navdeep Singh. It was only, in pursuance of the