Legal representatives under the Motor Vehicles Act can claim compensation even if not dependents, affirming broader interpretations of eligible claimants.

1. Both the above captioned first appeals under S.173 read with S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arising out of common judgment and award, are at the instance of the appellant - original opponent No. 6 in First Appeal No. 1792 of 2020 and appellant - original opponent No. 3 in First Appeal No. 2222 of 2020 respectively, and are directed against the self - same judgment and award dated 15.1.2020 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Main), Gandhinagar in MACP No. 151 of 2010 by which the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the original claimant (opponent No. 6).

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal may be summarised as under:
2.1 First Appeal No. 1792 of 2020 is filed by the appellant - original opponent No. 6 (Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd. - insurance company of Tavera Car No. GJ 18 - AC 7805) and First Appeal No. 2222 of 2020 is filed by the appellant - original opponent No. 3 (ICICI Lombard General Ins. Co. Ltd. - insurance company of the truck No. GJ 9 - P 3278).
2.2 The opponent No. 6 herein - original claimant is the real sister of deceased - Rakesh Shantilal Sharma. The claim petition was filed by the opponent No. 6 - original claimant being legal representative of deceased - Rakesh Shantilal Sharma. Before accident, the deceased was residing with his sister as she sponsored him and was brought up by her. The deceased was settled in UK with his sister - Minakshi Shantilal, i.e., the original claimant. The parents of the deceased died before the accident. Except the opponent No. 6 - original claimant, there is no one representing the estate of the deceased.
2.3 On 4.10.2009, at about 5 o'clock in the morning, the deceased was travelling from Dehgam to Ahmedabad in Tavera car bearing registration No. GJ 18 - AC 7805. At the same time, a truck, loaded with wooden logs, bearing registration No. GJ 9 - P 3278 was stationary on road. Tavera car, in which the deceased was travelling, dashed into the truck, due to which deceased - Rakesh Shantilal Sharma received fatal injuries and died on the spot.
2.4 A criminal complaint came to be lodged by the driver of the truck against the driver of Tavera car and charge - sheet came to be filed against the driver of Tavera car.
2.5 The original claimant, being sister of deceased - Rakesh Shantilal Sharma, filed the claim petition before the MACT (Main), Gandhinagar, claiming an amount of dependency loss as after completion of education at UK, the deceased was working as a teacher with South Thames College and the claimant was dependent on the income of the deceased. It was further contended that on account of sad demise of the deceased, the opponent No. 6 - original claimant suffered mental shock and agony and lost the love and affection of her beloved brother. The deceased was earning 2,500 pounds per month and if the accident had not occurred, there were all chances of increase in income of the deceased in future. The opponent No. 6 - original claimant claimed the amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000 towards compensation.
2.6 The following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal at Exh. 28 for determination of the claim, which read thus:
"(1) Whether it is proved that the deceased died on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident?
(2) What amount, if any, the claimant is entitled to by way of compensation and from which of the opponents?
(3) What order and award?"
2.7 The findings arrived at by the Tribunal on the above issues read thu