A legal representative not financially dependent on the deceased may still claim compensation under statutory provisions.

1. Leave granted.

2. An interesting question is involved in this appeal. By the impugned judgment the Calcutta High Court held that though the appellant, a married daughter of Bata Krishna Mondal (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') could maintain a claim petition in terms of S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act') she was not entitled to any compensation as she was not dependant upon the deceased.  

3. Factual position is undisputed and needs a brief reference.
On 11.5.1998 deceased lost his life in a vehicular accident and the offending vehicle, a Mini Truck registration No. WB-29/0185 belonged to respondent No. 2. As the deceased had no other legal heir, a claim petition was lodged claiming compensation. Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'insurer') with whom the offending vehicle was the subject matter of insurance filed a written statement taking the stand that since the claimant was not dependant upon the deceased, there was no question of any compensation being paid. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Midnapore at Tamluk, District Midnapore (in short the 'Tribunal') dismissed the claim petition accepting the stand of the insurer.
An appeal was filed before the Calcutta High Court questioning the correctness of the Tribunal's view. The High Court by the impugned judgment held that the appeal was without merit and dismissed the same. It was held that though a married daughter can be covered by the expression "legal representative" appearing in S.166 of the Act, she was not entitled to any compensation unless he or she was dependant on the deceased. The expression '"legal representative" has not been defined either in the Act or the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (in short the 'Rules'). The widest meaning, therefore, can be ascribed to it in terms of S.2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC').

4. When the matter came up for hearing considering the importance of the question, Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel was requested to act as Amicus Curiae. He has with reference to various provisions submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal and the High Court is super technical. Even if there was no dependence, there is a loss to the estate and a person who is a legal representative but not dependant can yet be a beneficiary of the estate. It was, therefore, submitted that a realistic and pragmatic view should be taken.

5. Learned counsel for the insurer supported the judgment of the Tribunal and the High Court.

6. S.166 of the Act corresponds to S.110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Old Act') and the same reads as follows:
"Application for compensation:- (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of S.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 authorized 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 whic