PANKAJ JAIN, J.

By way of this common judgment, I intend to dispose off two appeals along with two cross-objections arising out of two claim petitions bearing MACT Nos. 98 of 2015 and 99 of 2015, titled Sushil Kumar & another versus Inder Bahadur & others, which were decided by a common award dated 28.04.2017, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (for short, “the Tribunal”).

Both the claim petitions arise out of the same motor vehicular accident and were, therefore, consolidated and decided together by the Tribunal. The insurance company has preferred two appeals challenging the award passed in favour of the claimants, whereas the claimants have filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of compensation.

The claim petitions were filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. FAO No.5554 of 2017 arises out of Claim Petition No. 98 of 2015, wherein compensation has been sought on account of the death of Ashwani Kumar, who expired at the age of 58 years. In the connected claim petition bearing No. 99 of 2015, compensation has been claimed on account of the death of Smt. Kiran.

The primary contention raised by the insurance company is that both the claimants are major and married and were not dependent upon the deceased, namely Ashwani Kumar and Smt. Kiran, and therefore, the claim petitions are not maintainable.

This issue is no longer res integra. It is well settled that legal representatives are entitled to maintain a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The statute does not mandate that such legal representatives must be dependents of the deceased as in the case of Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.

The said issue has been authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Birender and others, 2020(1) RCR(Civil) 694, wherein it has been observed as under:-

“12. We have heard Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the insurance company (appellant) and Ms. Abha R. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The principal issues which arise for our consideration are as follows:-

(i) Whether the major sons of the deceased who are married and gainfully employed or earning, can claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act')?

(ii) Whether such legal representatives are entitled only for compensation under the conventional heads?

(iii) Whether the amount receivable by the legal representatives of the deceased under the 2006 Rules is required to be deducted as a whole or only portion thereof?

13. Reverting to the first issue - that needs to be answered on the basis of the scheme of the Act. Section 166 of the Act provides for filing of application for compensation by persons mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-Section (1) thereof. Section 166 of the Act, as applicable at the relevant time, reads thus:-

"Section 166. Application for compensation.-(1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made-

(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or

(b) by the owner of the property; or

(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or

(d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:

Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application.

(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of