JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Deepak Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Amaresh Sinha and Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent insurance companies none for owner or driver of truck. perused the judgment and order impugned.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 22.8.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Varanasi in M.A.C.P. No.151 of 2004 awarding a sum of Rs.14,08,000/-with interest at the rate of 6% as compensation for death of four family members of the claimants who lost their family members in the fateful accident .

3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is in dispute. The respondent has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The issues to be decided are, the quantum of compensation awarded and whether the deduction of 25% for negligence of driver of maruti car could be deducted from the compensation awarded to the heirs of non tort feasor. The legal heirs have lost mother and father and appellant no.4 has lost her son and daughter-in-law and, therefore, even if we consider the matter from the angle of negligence of driver to the tune of 25 % for other deceased who have passed away, it would not be a case of contributory negligence but it would be a case of composite negligence and, therefore, no amount could have deducted by the Tribunal from the compensation awarded for the death of non tort feasors, namely, passengers. The fact that the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been interpreted to take within its sweep the term ‘legal representative’ and not dependent. A person would be legal representative/legal heirs even if he is not dependent on the deceased. A person may be dependent as also legal heir (legal representative). This distinction will have to be decided by us as for the death of one of deceased, the Tribunal has rejected the claim. Unfortunate part of this litigation is that the legal heirs, i.e, aged mother and mother-in-law of the deceased, two minor children and one adolescent sister were advised to file one claim petition for death of four people. These aspects will have to be looked into as though it may appear very simple but there is complexity weaved into this litigation. The question is could the Tribunal dismiss the claim petition if separate claim petitions were filed for four deaths by legal representative whether they were dependent or not. Thus, we have to decide two issues compensation awarded and liability based on negligence.

4. Facts in brevity as per claim petition are that on 13.6.2004 at about 5.30 am Ram Dular Dubey, Pravin @ Pintu Dubey, Vidyawati Devi and Manju Devi boarding in Maruti Van bearing Registration No. UP 65 Y 4968 were going to offer prayers to Vindhyavasini Devi and when they reached near Village Khodhwa, P.S. Mirzamurad, driver of truck bearing Registration No. UP 78 A N 0069 driving rashly and negligently came from the opposite side and dashed with the said maruti van on account of which Ram Dular Dubey and Pravin Kumar Dubey died on the spot while Vidyawati Devi and Manju Devi died during the treatment in Kabir Chaura Hospital. At the time of accident, age of deceased Ram Dular Dubey was about 47 years; age of deceased Smt. Vidyawati was about 45 years; deceased Pravin Dubey and Manju Dubey were aged about 25 years.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that though it was head on collusion it was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck in which four persons traveling in maruti van died leaving behind them mother of the deceased namely Ramwanti Devi (old widow lady), Pramod Kumar Dubey, second son of deceased (minor) and another minor son Sandip Kumar Dubey aged about 12 years and unmarried daughter of deceased being Anju Dubey aged about 20 years who were the legal representatives of all the four deceased . The tribunal found driver of th