Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.
1. These appeals F.A.O. (MVA) Nos. 175 of 1991, 89 and 105 of 1993 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'the Act') are directed against the judgment and award dated 30.10.1990 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shimla, whereby the appellants-claimants were awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000 each as compensation on account of the death of Chandrika Bhatia, S.R. Bhatia and his wife Lalita Bhatia in a motor accident which took place on 15.6.1988. The appellants-claimants claimed enhancement of compensation to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000 in one appeal and in two other appeals just compensation.
2. All these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as these arise out of single accident and similar questions of law and facts are involved in all of them.
3. Briefly the facts leading to these appeals may be stated thus:
One A.S. Kaundal, who was working as Assistant Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Shimla, had gone to Naldehra on 15.6.1988 for sightseeing in a car No. HIS 390 owned by the Life Insurance Corporation. At that time there were 7 other persons sitting in the said car. Kaundal was driving the car himself. At about 11.30 a.m. when the car reached near Sunderban (Mashobra) it went off the road and fell down into the nullah as a result of which four persons, namely, A.S. Kaundal, S.R. Bhatia and his wife Lalita Bhatia and daughter Chandrika Bhatia had died.
4. The injured and legal heirs of the deceased had filed six claim petitions before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal against the insurance company and legal heirs of A.S. Kaundal claiming compensation. In MACC No. 67-S/2 of 1988 the appellant-claimant alleged that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the car by deceased A.S. Kaundal resulting in the death of his daughter Chandrika Bhatia who was 21 years of age at the time of her death and was unmarried. It was also alleged that the deceased was a student of M.Ed, in Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla. He claimed Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation. Appellant-claimant Dinesh Kumar filed two separate claim petition Nos. MACC 51-S/2 of 1988 and MACC 50-S/2 of 1988, one in respect of death of his father S.R. Bhatia and second in respect of the death of his mother Lalita Bhatia. He also alleged that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the car by deceased A.S. Kaundal. It was also alleged that at the time of the death of his father, he was working as Under Secretary in the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi and he was in receipt of a salary of about Rs. 6,000 per month. The age of deceased S.R. Bhatia was 55 years at the time of his death. He claimed compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 on account of the death of his father and a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 on account of death of his mother. He maintained that he is the sole legal heir of his deceased parents and was being looked after and maintained by his deceased father before his death. The other three claim petitions were filed by injured occupants of the car.
5. All the claim petitions were contested and resisted by the respondents. The legal heirs of the deceased A.S. Kaundal who are the widow and son respectively alleged that the claim petitions were not competent against them because they were not liable to pay any compensation to the appellants-claimants. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by A.S. Kaundal was denied for want of knowledge and it was admitted that the car met with an accident which was insured with the respondent insurance company.
6. Respondent Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. in its reply stated that the car in question was insured in the name of Life Insurance Corporation and since the insured had not been made a party, the respondent insurance company was not liable to satisfy any award as it was liable only to satisfy that award which came to be passed against the insured. Alternatively, it was stated that even if respondent insurance company was also liable to pay compensation to the appellants-claimants and other injured claimants even then the claims of the appellants-claimants are highly exaggerated. It was denied that accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the car by deceased A.S. Kaundal.
7. On the controversial pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the deceased S.R. Bhatia, Lalita Bhatia and Chandrika had died on account of rash and negligent driving of the car by owner-cum driver A.S. Kaundal, as alleged. If so, its effect? OPP
(2) Whether Ashish Kumar, Renu Kapur and Alka Bhatia had sustained injuries on account of the rash and negligent driving of the car by owner-cum-driver A.S. Kaundal, as alleged. If so, its effect? OPP
(3) If issue Nos. 1 and 2 supra are proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from which of the respondents? OPP
(4) Relief.
8. The parties went to trial and the Tribunal vide its award dated 31.10.1990 held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by A.S. Kaundal and the appellants-claimants and injured claimants were held entitled to receive compensation.
9. On these findings the appellants-claimants were awarded compensation of:
(a) Rs. 25,000 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum in claim petition MACC No. 67-S/2 of 1988-T.C. Bhatia v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.;
(b) Rs. 50,000 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent in claim petition Nos. 51-S/2 and 50-S/2 of 1988 filed by Dinesh Kumar Bhatia for the death of his parents;
(c) Injured Alka Bhatia Rs. 3,000;
(d) Injured Renu Kapoor Rs. 3,000; and
(e) Injured Ashish Kumar Rs. 3,000.
The amount of compensation was ordered to be paid by the respondent insurance company.
10. Three appellants-claimants filed the aforesaid appeals seeking enhancement of the award. No appeal(s) appears to have been filed by the other claimants nor by the respondent insurance company challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and award of the Tribunal below. Therefore, the reasoning of the Tribunal below in respect of the cause of the accident has attained finality and we do not propose to touch the findings recorded by the Tribunal below against issue Nos. 1 and 2.
11. Now to the question of assessment of compensation the claimants-appellants in F.A.O. (MVA) No. 175 of 1991 claimed an amount of Rs. 10,00,000 in the claim application. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 25,000. There is no challenge to the fact that at the time of accident, Chand-rika, daughter of the appellant-claimant was a student of M.Ed, and she was about 21 years of age. The Tribunal below held that the appellant-claimant is a legal heir of deceased Chandrika Bhatia but the appellant-claimant was not dependent upon her and, therefore, he was awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000 lump sum on account of the death of his daughter for mental shock and agony.
12. The Tribunal observed that the appellant-claimant Dinesh Kumar being employed as Mechanical Engineer in Engineers India Ltd., Delhi and getting a salary of Rs. 2,500 per month, was not dependent upon his deceased parents at the time of their death but admittedly, he is held legal heir of his parents who died in the accident and, therefore, he was awarded a lump sum of Rs. 50,000 in both the claim applications.
13. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants in all these appeals urged that the Tribunal below has come to a wrong conclusion that the appellants-claimants were not dependent upon the deceased. He contended that the Tribunal has misinterpreted the term 'legal heir' while assessing the just compensation and it is settled law that all the legal heirs are entitled to just compensation. He next contended that in the case of T.C. Bhatia, his daughter had her bright future and she was doing M.Ed, at the time of her death and was in fact receiving interview letters for the purpose of employment from various quarters. He also contended that had Chandrika Bhatia not met with unfortunate and untimely death, she would have got job of a teacher either in Government employment or private institution and she would have fetched a salary of Rs. 4,000 per month at the time of her death and looking to her age the multiplier of 35 was just and equitable in the present case. In other appeals learned counsel urged that the deceased father of Dinesh Kumar was Under Secretary in the Ministry of Finance, Government of India and was getting Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 6,000 per month as salary and if half of the amount of salary was deducted for maintaining his father and mother, the loss to the estate after the death of his father on the basis of multiplier of 10 is caused to the extent of Rs. 3,60,000. In the case of deceased mother of Dinesh Kumar the learned counsel urged that she was the housewife aged about 51 years at the time of the accident and it is left to the discretion of the court to award just compensation in favour of her son appellant-claimant.
14. Mr. L.C. Kapoor, learned counsel for the respondent insurance company contended that there is no evidence brought on record by the appellants-claimants that they were dependent upon the deceased and he has sought to defend the award of the Tribunal below which according to the learned counsel has been passed after sound appreciation of the evidence.
15. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel on either side and examined the entire material on record. We do not agree with the reasoning of the learned Tribunal below that since the appellants-claimants were not dependent upon their deceased parents, therefore, they are not entitled for compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal appears to have assumed wrongly that all legal representatives of the deceased persons who died in the accident should be dependent upon the deceased and only those dependants are entitled for claiming compensation.
16. The moot question involved for our determination and consideration in the appeals on hand is whether the appellant-claimant T.C. Bhatia is the legal heir of his deceased daughter Chandrika and also whether Dinesh Kumar an employed son is the legal heir of his father S.R. Bhatia and mother Lalita Bhatia and if so, whether they are entitled for compensation as legal heirs. To answer this question, we have examined the provisions of Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (section 166 of 1988 Act). In Megjibhai Khimji Vira v. Chaturbhai Taljabhai 1977 ACJ 253 (Gujarat), a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court held that all the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased could maintain the claim petition under Section 110-A of the Act and had awarded compensation in favour of the nephew of the deceased. Relying upon Megjibhai Khimji Vira's decision (supra) learned single Judge of this court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Dole Ram 1981 ACJ 219 (HP), held that brother and sister of the deceased can be held to be within the purview of legal representatives as given in Section 2 (11), Civil Procedure Code and such brothers and sisters will definitely be entitled to file application for claiming compensation and if any compensation is found to be payable then such persons being the legal representatives will be entitled to get the compensation. The Apex Court had the occasion to interpret expression 'legal representatives' appearing in Section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (corresponding to Section 166 of 1988 Act) and 'dependants' contemplated by Section 1-A of Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 in Gujarat State Road Trans. Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai 1987 ACJ 561 (SC), the Hon'ble Judges in para 10 held as under:
(10) Clauses (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 110-A of the Act provide that an application for compensation arising out of an accident may be made where death has resulted from the accident by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased or by any agent duly authorised by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. The proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 110-A provides 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. The expression 'legal representative' has not been defined in the Act. Section 2 (11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 defines 'legal representative' as a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. The above definition, no doubt, in terms does not apply to a case before the Claims Tribunal but it has to be stated that even in ordinary parlance the said expression is understood almost in the same way in which it is defined in the Code of Civil Procedure. A legal representative ordinarily means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person or a person on whom the estate devolves on the death of an individual. Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 110-A of the Act authorises all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased to make an application for compensation before the Claims Tribunal for the death of the deceased on account of a motor vehicle accident and clause (c) of that sub-section authorises any agent duly authorised by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased to make it. The proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 110-A of the Act appears to be of some significance. It provides that the application for compensation shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased. Section 110-A (1) of the Act thus expressly states that (i) an application for compensation may be made by the legal representatives of the deceased or their agent and (ii) that such application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives. Both the person or persons who can make an application for compensation and the persons for whose benefit such application can be made are thus indicated in Section 110-A of the Act. This section in a way is a substitute to the extent indicated above for the provisions of Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which provides that 'every such action or suit shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent and child, if any, of the person whose death shall have been so caused and shall be brought by and in the name of the executor, administrator or representative of the person deceased'. While the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 provides that such suit shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent and child of the deceased, Section 110-A (1) of the Act says that the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of the legal representatives of the deceased. A legal representative in a given case need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child. It is further seen from Section 110-B of the Act that the Claims Tribunal is authorised to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid. This provision takes the place of the third para of Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which provides that in every such action, the court may give such damages as it may think proportioned to the loss resulting from such death to the parties respectively, for whom and for whose benefit such action shall be brought. Persons for whose benefit such an application can be made and the manner in which the compensation awarded may be distributed amongst the persons for whose benefit the application is made are dealt with by Section 110-A and Section 110-B of the Act and to that extent the provisions of the Act do supersede the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 insofar as motor vehicle accidents are concerned. These provisions are not merely procedural provisions. They substantively affect the rights of the parties. As the right of action created by the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 was 'new in its species, new in its quality, new in its principles, in every way new' the right given to the legal representatives under the Act to file an application for compensation for death due to a motor vehicle accident is equally new and an enlarged one. This new right cannot be hedged in by all the limitations of an action under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. New situations and new dangers require new strategies and new remedies.
(Emphasis added)
The Hon'ble Judges went on further and said as under in para 12:
(12) We feel that the view taken by the Gujarat High Court is in consonance with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience having regard to the conditions of the Indian society. Every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realisation of compensation and that is provided by Sections 110-A to 110-F of the Act. These provisions are in consonance with the principles of law of Torts that every injury must have a remedy. It is for the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to determine the compensation which appears to it to be just as provided in Section 110-B of the Act, to specify the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid. The determination of the compensation payable and its apportionment as required by Section 110-B of the Act amongst the legal representatives for whose benefit an application may be filed under Section 110-A of the Act have to be done in accordance with well-known principles of law. We should remember that in an Indian family brothers, sisters and brothers' children and sometimes foster children live together and they are dependent upon the breadwinner of the family and if the breadwinner is killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, there is no justification to deny them compensation relying upon the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which as we have already held has been substantially modified by the provisions contained in the Act in relation to cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents. We express our approval of the decision in Megjibhai Khimji Vira v. Chaturbhai Taljabhai 1977 ACJ 253 (Gujarat) and hold that the brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to maintain a petition under Section 110-A of the Act if he is a legal representative of the deceased.
17. In the aforesaid paras of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Judges have held that the definition of 'legal representative' incorporated in Section 2 (11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply to the provisions of Section 110-A (1) of 1939 Act and persons for whose benefits application for compensation can be made and the manner in which the compensation awarded may be distributed amongst the persons for whose benefits the application is made are dealt with by Section 110-A and Section 110-B of the Act and to that extent the provisions of the Act do supersede the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 insofar as the motor vehicle accidents are concerned. The Hon'ble Judges expressed their approval of the decision in Megjibhai Khimji Vira v. Chaturbhai Taljabhai 1977 ACJ 253 (Gujarat) and held that brother of a person who died in motor vehicle accident was entitled to maintain a petition under Section 110-A of the Act if he was a legal representative of the deceased.
18. Applying the well settled position of law in the present case, we hold T.C. Bhatia, father of the deceased Chandrika Bhatia and Dinesh Kumar Bhatia, son of S.R. Bhatia and Lalita Bhatia who had admittedly died in the accident the legal representatives of the deceased and they are entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased.
19. The next question involved for consideration is about the quantum of compensation awardable to the appellants-claimants for the death of Chandrika Bhatia, S.R. Bhatia and Lalita Bhatia. It has come on record that Chandrika Bhatia was studying in M.Ed, course at the time of her death and appellant-claimant T.C. Bhatia who is held to be entitled to the compensation for the unfortunate and untimely death of his unmarried daughter who has been brought up by him and given good education. It has come in the evidence of claimant T.C. Bhatia that his daughter before death had received interview cards for some job. There is no evidence in rebuttal. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant during the course of arguments stated that the age of appellant-claimant at the time of accident of his daughter was about 50 years. He next contended that the prospects of Chandrika Bhatia of getting some good job were there, as she was also possessing Trained Graduate Teacher qualification and had she been appointed in Government job as teacher her salary would have been between Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 4,000 per month. It is true that deceased Chandrika Bhatia was still a student and was not gainfully employed in job. Considering the education prospects of deceased Chandrika Bhatia, it could, therefore, reasonably be expected that she would after finishing her education have settled in a productive job and earned income of a reasonable amount. At the time of her death, Chandrika's age was hardly 21 years and her father was of 50 years. We are conscious of the fact that Chandrika Bhatia would have got married at some point of time had she not died in the accident and after her marriage she could not have contributed to the estate of her father. In the proceedings of this nature, we cannot apply any definite and fixed criteria for assessing the income of Chandrika Bhatia and the loss to the estate. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we have to determine just compensation awardable to the appellant-claimant T.C. Bhatia. Therefore, we hold that had Chandrika Bhatia been alive she would have got job as a teacher and earned Rs. 4,000 per month as her salary. Out of the said amount she would have contributed Rs. 1.80Q per month to the estate of her father and the balance amount would have been spent by her on her own expenses, etc. Considering the expectancy of life of appellant-claimant T.C. Bhatia, we are of the view that multiplier of 10 would be just and proper in the present case. Thus, we hold the appellant-claimant T.C. Bhatia is entitled for compensation of Rs. 1,800 x 12 x 10 = Rs. 2,16,000.
20. In support of our reasonings, we may with advantage take the guidance of the Apex Court in Haji Zainullah Khan (Dead) by LR's v. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad 1994 ACJ 993 (SC). In this case the Supreme Court has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 on the death of 21 years old student of B.Sc. 1st year with bright future, in accident in which he was hit by a truck. Again in Shanti Bai v. Charan Singh 1998 ACJ 848 (SC), Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court observed in para 3 of the judgment as under:.In our view, as the victim was aged 18 years and belonged to a labour class and even his younger brother was doing labour work and getting Rs. 10 per day, it is obvious that the deceased, had he survived, would have earned a substantial amount per month for the benefit of the family as the appellants are his destitute mother and her minor children. In our view, the total compensation of Rs. 40,000 is too meagre. Even taking a reasonable view of the amount which the deceased would have earned, had he survived, considering the future economic prospects of the deceased we deem it fit to increase the award to a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,50,000.
21. In the aforesaid two appeals filed by Dinesh Kumar, we hold that he is the legal representative of the deceased S.R. Bhatia and Lalita Bhatia, the father and mother respectively and, therefore, he is entitled to the compensation on account of their deaths in the accident. It has come in the evidence that deceased S.R. Bhatia before his death was employed as Under Secretary in the Ministry of Finance, Government of India and his age was about 55 years and Lalita Bhatia was his wife and aged about 50 years. Undisputedly, appellant Dinesh Kumar is employed but being the legal representative of his parents, he is held entitled to compensation for loss to the estate. It has come in the evidence of Dinesh Bhatia that at the time of death of his father, he was getting a salary of Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 6,000 per month. Taking into consideration the income of Rs. 6,000 per month of S.R. Bhatia and deducting the amount being spent by him on his personal expenses and maintaining his wife, the datum figure for the loss to the estate on account of the death of the father of the appellant-claimant is determined at Rs. 1,100 per month and Rs. 13,200 per annum. We are of the view that the multiplier of 10 will be just and equitable in this case. Thus, the total loss to the dependency on account of death of father of the appellant-claimant comes to Rs. 1,32,000. Concedingly, the mother of the appellant Dinesh Kumar was a housewife and her age at the time of death was about 50 years. The pecuniary loss that the son usually suffers in case of death of a mother comprises loss of services that the deceased provided to him gratuitously. The measure of this loss being the cost of replacing the services and loss of love and affection of the mother. Considering the total pecuniary loss to the appellant-claimant in the form of loss of services including loss of love and affection and loss to the estate on account of death of his mother in our view the total compensation of Rs. 25,000 awarded by the Tribunal is too meagre and we deem it fit to increase the award to lump sum of Rs. 1,00,000 for the death of Lalita Bhatia. The amounts of Rs. 25,000 awarded by the Tribunal to the appellants-claimants shall be adjusted from the compensation amount awarded by us in these appeals.
22. The additional amounts awarded in favour of the appellants-claimants in these appeals shall be deposited by the respondent insurance company with 12 per cent interest per annum from the date of the institution of claim petition till actual deposits in the Registry of this court. The said deposits shall be made within 8 weeks from this date.
23. For the foregoing reasons, all the appeals are allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. Costs on parties.