The main legal point established in the judgment is that every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realization of compensation, and the definition of 'legal representative' as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure applies in the context of the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. The appellants before this Court, in this Appeal from Order, preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 (hereinafter to be called as Act of 1988), has questioned the propriety of the award dated 29.07.2011, as it has been rendered by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Rishikesh, in MACP Case No. 50 of 2008, Smt. Indirawati Devi and Others vs. Sri Rajeev Singhal and Others. As a consequence of the impugned award, rendered by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the claim petition preferred by the appellants/claimants herein, had been rejected.

2. The factual aspects which engaged consideration in the said case, are that the claimants have contended, that on 28.11.2007, when the offending vehicle i.e. Truck bearing registration number as UA-07C-9927, was being driven by the driver of the vehicle and was going towards Rishikesh, it was on account of a technical snag in the vehicle, a mechanic was called upon i.e. Mr. Harpal Singh, for the purpose of carrying out the necessary repairs, who after undertaking the necessary repairs, was travelling in the vehicle in question which had met with an accident near Chamba-Dharasu motor road.

3. It is contended that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, the offending vehicle fell into a gorge as a result of which the mechanic late Mr. Harpal Singh, who was travelling on it, had suffered grievous injuries and later on he died on the spot.

4. The claimants have contended, that on the date of the accident i.e. on 28.11.2007, the deceased Harpal Singh was of 42 years of age and was working as a mechanic in Tata Commercial Motors, Rishikesh and was being remunerated with wages payable @ Rs. 4,108/- per month.

5. Claimants contended that the claimant No. 1, since being the sister-in-law (wife of the brother), claimant No. 3, since being the real brother of the deceased and claimant Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6, since being the dependents of the deceased late Mr. Harpal Singh, they would be entitled for the remittance of the compensation, which they have claimed to the tune of Rs. 30,30,000/- to be paid to them.

6. The claim petition was contested by the Opposite Party No. 3, to the claim petition i.e. the Insurance Company, who had filed its written statement i.e. paper No. 19(kha), wherein the Insurance Company had questioned the very propriety of the maintainability of the claim petition, at the behest of the claimants, because looking to their interse relationship with they allegedly enjoyed with deceased, they would not be entitled for the grant of any compensation. Apart from that, the Insurance Company, has also denied the fact, that the offending vehicle was not at all involved in the accident, which is said to have chanced on 28.11.2007.

7. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, that in fact the story, which was build up by the claimants that late Mr. Harpal Singh, was travelling on the offending vehicle, in fact, it is a false story, which has been cooked up later, and in fact, the deceased was not at all travelling in the vehicle in question, though the fact pertaining to late Mr. Harpal Singh, having being employed with the Tata Motors and drawing the salary as referred above, was also a fact, which was attempted to be denied.

8. It was contended by the Insurance Company in their written statement, that on the date of the accident, the vehicle was not being driven, as per the terms of the insurance policy and since there was an apparent violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and that the deceased, if at all, it is said to be treated to be travelling on the offending vehicle, he would be treated as to be a “gratuitous passenger” and the claimants herein though without admitting the fact of their dependency had submitted that they would not be entitled for the grant of any compensation.

9. The Opposit