ROY AND BIHARI, JJ.

( 1 ) THE solitary point urged by Mr. S. C. Srivastava holding brief for Mr. S. K. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant on the question of admission of this appeal is that even though the claimants were not dependants of the deceased, thus the judgment awarding compensation plus interest at the rate of 10 per cent in their favour has been illegally passed and thus the appeal be admitted.

( 2 ) WHEN we asked a question to Mr. Srivastava as to what is the basis of making his submission, he referred to section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads thus:"where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. "

( 3 ) THE legislature has not used the word dependant rather it has used the words all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. The words legal representative have not been defined under the motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, we are required to understand the aforementioned expression with reference to its ordinary dictionary meaning.

( 4 ) FIRSTLY, from the material as produced by the appellant it appears that the deceased was the brother of the claimants whose parents had already died. The Apex Court in Gujarat State Road trans. Corpn. v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, 1987 ACJ 561 (SC), has held that legal representative ordinarily means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person or a person on whom the estate devolves on the death of an individual and hence legal representatives including brothers of the deceased victim of a motor accident are entitled to get compensation under section 110-A of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939.

( 5 ) WE thus do not find any substance in the solitary submission made by Mr. Srivastava and accordingly, dismiss this appeal in limine. Appeal dismissed.

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document