These appeals are at the instance of the Insurance

Company and the claimants calling in question correctness

of judgment and award dated 05.05.2010 in M.V.C.

No.510/2008 by Senior Civil Judge, and MACT, Karkala

(herein after referred to as Tribunal)

Learned

Tribunal,

after

appreciating

the

evidence and the contentions advanced on both sides has

allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a

compensation of Rs.2,53,000/- (Rupees Two lakh fifty three

thousand only) with interest thereon at 6% per annum from

the date of petition till the date of payment.

Learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance

Company strongly contended that the claimants are the

widowed mother and married daughter of the deceased

Vastala Jain having their own resources. He further submits

that they were not dependents on the deceased and in that

view of the matter the liability fastened on the Insurance

Company to pay the compensation as awarded is illegal and

Insurance Company is liable to pay only a sum of

5

Rs.50,000/- at the most. He further submits that the appeal

is entitled to be allowed and the direction in the award

modified to the extent as above.

4.

In support of the appeal filed by the claimants,

it is urged that compensation awarded is on the lower side

and it is required to be enhanced and appeal accordingly is

required to be allowed.

5.

I have given my anxious consideration to the

contentions urged on both sides. I have carefully perused

the records.

6.

The liability to pay the compensation has not

been questioned by the appellant-Insurance Company.

Therefore, it is not necessary to make reference to the facts

of the case.

7.

There is no dispute about the fact that

deceased Vastala Jain was separated from her husband by

virtue of a Court decree. Claimant No.1 is the mother and

claimant No.2 is her married daughter. The learned Counsel

for the appellant-Insurance Company has urged that

6

evidence clearly shows that the claimant mother had

several other children who are gainfully employed and

therefore, she was not dependent on the deceased Vastala

Jain. His further contention is that claimant No.2 even

though, is the daughter of the deceased, she is also

married and living with her husband and therefore there is

no dependency. In so far as the above said contentions are

concerned legal position is no longer res integra.

8.

The question essentially is not whether the

claimants are dependants but whether they are the legal

representatives of the deceased for whose death the claim

for compensation has been made. In view of the express

terms of Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988,

Hon9ble

Supreme

Court

in

NATIONAL

INSURANCE

COMPANY vs BIRENDER AND OTHERS ((2020) 11

SCC 356) has observed as follows;

<14. The legal representatives of the

deceased

could

move

application

for

compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section

166(1). The major married son who is also

earning and not fully dependant on the

deceased, would be still covered by the

expression

<legal

representative=

of

the

deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera (supra)

had

expounded

that

liability

to

pay

compensation under the Act does not cease

7

because of absence of dependency of the

concerned legal representative. Notably, the

expression <legal representative= has not been

defined in the Act. In Manjuri Bera (supra), the

Court observed thus:- <9. In terms of clause (c)

of sub-section (1) of Section 166 of the Act in

case of death, all or any of the legal

representatives

of

the

deceased

become

entitled to compensation and any such legal

representative can file a claim petition. The

proviso to said sub-section makes the position

clear that where all the legal representatives

had not joined, then application can be made

on behalf of the legal representatives of the

deceased

by

impleading

those

legal

representatives as respondents. Therefore, the

High Court was justified in its view that the

appellant could maintain a claim petition in

terms of Section 166 of the Act.

10.