The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'legal representative' under the Motor Vehicles Act and the legislative intent of granting compensation to family members of a deceased in a motor accident.

RAJENDRA MENON, J. :- This is claimants appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of the compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vidisha in claim case No. 138/2002.

2. Claimants are the widowed mother and invalid brother of deceased Sajid Khan who was working as driver in truck bearing CII-7814. It is stated that on 28-8-02 when Sajid Khan was working as driver and was checking nut bolts of the wheels after parking the truck by the road side, a bus bearing No. M.P. 04-F-0526 belonging to respondent No. 1, driven by the respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3 came from the opposite direction, it was driven in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the truck, as a result injuries were sustained by Sajid Khan and he died on the spot. Inter alia contending that Sajid Khan was earning Rs. 3000/- as salary per month, was paid daily allowance of Rs. 75/-, appellant No. 1 widowed mother and appellant No. 2 handicapped brother are totally dependent upon the deceased claimed compensation of Rs. 13,60,000/-. On the basis of material and evidence that case on record learned tribunal assessed the income of Sajid Khan at Rs. 1500/- per month and after deducting Rs. 1000/- for self expenses dependency has been assessed at Rs. 500/- per month, considering the age of appellant No. 1 to be about 70 years and taking note of the fact that appellant No. 2 is invalid brother aged 17 years multiplier of 13 is applied and the compensation determined as Rs. 1,56,000/-thereafter adding a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- for loss of love and affection a total compensation of Rs. 1,63,000/- is awarded. Inter alia contending that the compensation is very much on the lower side assessment of income of Rs. 1500/- per month is on the lower side, dependency is not properly assessed, this appeal is filed seeking enhancement of the compensation.

3. Shri K. M. Mishra, learned counsel for appellants invites our attention to the driving licence of the deceased Ex. P/7 statement PW/1 Amna Bi and pointed out that Sajid Khan was working as driver and according to claimant her son was earning Rs. 3000/- per month along with Rs. 75/- daily allowance. PW/2 Hart Singh who is owner of the truck in which Sajid Khan was working as driver has also stated the he was paying Rs. 3000/- per month and Rs. 75/- as daily allowance to the deceased. It is stated by Shri K.M. Mishra, that in rebuttal as no evidence is lead, learned tribunal has committed grave error in ignoring the statement of PW/1 Amna Bi and PW/2 Hari Singh in the matter of determining salary of deceased Sajid Khan and by assessing salary on the basis of improper assessment of evidence it is argued that tribunal has committed grave error which warrants interference now in this appeal.

4. Shri S.S. Bansal, learned counsel for Insurance Company supported the award and by filing a cross objection submitted that as appellant No.2 Rasid Khan, brother of deceased Sajid Khan is not his legal representative, no compensation can be granted to him. Placing reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2007 SC 1474 and inviting our attention to the provisions of Section 166 (1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the definition of legal representatives as appearing in Section 2 (11) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Shri Bansal tried to emphasise that appellant No. 2 is not a legal representative of deceased Sajid Khan and therefore, he is not entitled to compensation and in assessing the compensation on the basis of age and disability of the appellant No. 2 it is argued by the learned counsel for Insurance Company that learned tribunal has committed grave error and prays for interference and allowing of the cross objection.

5. Refuting the aforesaid contention and challenging the cross objection raised by the Insurance Company Shri K. M. Mishra, learned counsel for appel