The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of compensation for legal representatives of the deceased, irrespective of the extent of dependency, and the broad interpretation of dependency beyond financial aspects.

ARCHANA PURI, J.

1. These two appeals emanate from common Award dated 14.08.2014 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, thereby, granting compensation to Jagwa Ram, husband only, on account of death of Vidya Devi and further denying any compensation to appellant-claimant Kitabo, who allegedly sustained injuries, in the same accident.

2. FAO-8657-2014 relates to the claim petition filed by appellants-claimants Jagwa Ram and his sons, vis-a-vis, death of Vidya Devi and married daughters, have been impleaded as respondents No.4 and 5, in the claim petition.

3. FAO-10258-2014 relates to the claim petition filed by appellant-claimant Kitabo, thereby, asserting to have sustained injuries in the same accident.

4. On appraisal of the evidence adduced, learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had awarded compensation only to Jagwa Ram, husband, vis-a-vis, death of Vidya Devi and dismissed the claim petition filed by Kitabo.

5. So far as the fact of accident and imputation of rashness and negligence, upon the driver, namely Jogender of offending Auto Three wheeler bearing registration No.HR-61A-9027 is concerned, suffice to consider the finding, so recorded by learned Tribunal, which have not been challenged further, by the persons, so made liable.

6. The aforesaid two appeals have been filed, thereby, seeking enhancement of the compensation, vis-a-vis, death of Vidya Devi and for grant of compensation, vis-a-vis, injuries allegedly sustained by Kitabo, who was accompanying, Vidya Devi, at the time of said accident.

7. So far as, FAO-8657-2014 is concerned, at the very outset, it is pertinent to take note of the fact that learned Tribunal denied compensation to the claimants, who are husband, major sons of the deceased Vidya Devi, on account of 'loss of dependence', as it was observed that they (together with married daughters of the deceased), being capable of earning, thus, cannot be said to be dependent upon deceased Vidya Devi. However, claimant No.1 Jagwa Ram, husband of the deceased, was granted compensation to the extent of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and last rights, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium, being husband and Rs.5,000/- was granted, towards loss of estate. In total, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was granted to claimant No.1-Jagwa Ram.

8. However, such 'work upon' by learned Tribunal, thereby, denying compensation, on the count of 'loss of dependence' is palpably wrong. Very true, as evident from the evidence adduced, children of Vidya Devi, are grown up sons and daughters of the deceased, but however, the fact remains that they are the legal representatives of the deceased.

9. At this juncture, it is important to make reference to the decision rendered in National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender (2020) 11 SCC 356, wherein, a claim petition was filed by major married and earning sons of the deceased mother and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-

“12. The legal representatives of the deceased could move application for compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section 166 (1). The major married son who is also earning and not fully dependent on the deceased would be still covered by the expression “legal representative” of the deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera (supra) had expounded that liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the concerned legal representative. Notably, the expression “legal representative” has not been defined in the Act. xxx xxx xxxx

13. In paragraph 15 of the said decision, while adverting to the provisions of Section 140 of the Act, the Court observed that even if there is no loss of dependency, the claimant, if he was a legal representative, will be entitled to compensation. In the concurring judgment of Justice S.H. Kapadia, as His Lordship then was, it is observed that there is distinction between “right to apply for compensation” and “entitlement to compensation”. The compensation constitutes part of the estate of the decea