JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—These appeals (FAO (MVA)) Nos. 175/ 91, 89/93 and 105/93) 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 Accident Claims Tribunal Shimla, whereby the appellants-claimants were awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/ each as compensation on account of the deaths of Kumari Chandrika Bhatia, Shri S.R. Bhatia and his wife Smt. Lalita Bhatia in a motor accident which took place on 15.6.1988. The appellants-claimants claimed enhancement of compensation to the extent of Rupees ten lakhs in one appeal and in two other appeals just compensation. All these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as these arise out of single accident and similar question of law and facts are involved in all of them. 2. Briefly the facts leading to these appeals may be stated thus:— One Shri 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 sight seeing in a car No. HIS-390 owned by Life Insurance Corporation. At that time, there were 7 other persons sitting in the said car. Shir, 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 Shri A.S. Kaundal, Shri S.R. Bhatia and his wife Smt. Lalita Bhatia and Kumari Chandrika Bhatia had died. 3. The injured and legal heirs of deceased had filed six claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal against Insurance Company and legal heirs of Shri A.S. Kaundal claiming compensation. In MACC No. 67-S/2 of 1986 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 the death of his daughter Kumari 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 Hlmachal Pradesh University, Shimla. He claimed Rupees ten lakhs as compensation. Appellant-claimant Dinesh Kumar filed two separate claim petition Nos. It was also alleged that the deceased was a student of M.Ed in Hlmachal Pradesh University, Shimla. He claimed Rupees ten lakhs as compensation. Appellant-claimant Dinesh Kumar filed two separate claim petition Nos. MACC 51-S/2 of 1988 and MACC 5—S/2 of 1988, one in respect of death of his father Shri S.R. Bhatia and second in respect of the death of his mother Smt. 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 deceasd Shri S.R. Bhatia was 55 years at the time of his death. He claimed compensation of Rs. 8,000,00/- on account of the death of his father and a sum of Rs. 5,000.00/- on account of death of his mother. He maintained that he 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. 4. All the claim petitions were contested and resisted by the respondents. The legal heirs of the deceased A.S. Kaundal who are 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 Shri 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. 5. Respondent M/s. Oriental Insurance Company 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. 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 Shri. A.S. Kaundal. 6. On the controversial pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:— (1) Whether the deceased Shri S.R. Bhatia, Smt. Lalita Bhatia and Kumari Chandrika had died on account of rash and negligent driving of the car-cum-owner driver Shri A.S. Kaundal, as alleged. If so, its effect? OPR. (2) Whether Master Ashish Kumar, Mrs. Menu Kapur and Kumari Alka Bhatia had sustained injuries on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Car-cum-owner driver Shri A.S. Kaundal, as alleged. If so, its effect? OPP. (3) If issues No. 1 and 2 supra are proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from which of the respondent? OPP. (4) Relief. The parties went to trial and the Tribunal vide award dated 31.10.1990 held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by Shri A.S. Kaundal and the appellants-claimants and injured claimants were held entitled to receive compensation. On these findings the appellants-claimants were awarded compensation of : (a) Rs. 25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum in claim petition No. MACC No. 67-S/2 of 1988-T.C. Bhatia V. M/s. Oriental Insurance Company; (b) Rs. 50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% in claim petition No. 51 and 50-S/2/1988 filed by Shri Dinesh Kumar Bhatia for the deaths of his parents; (c) Injured Kumari Alka Bhatia Rs. 3,000/- (d) Injured Ms. Renu Kapoor Rs. 3,000/-; and (e) Injured Master Ashish Kumar Rs. 3,000/- 7. The amount of compensation was ordered to be paid by respondent-Insurance Company. Three appellants-claimants filed the aforesaid appeals seeking for 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. 8. 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. 8. Now to the question of assessment of compensation the claimants-appellants in FAO (MVA) No. 175/91 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, Kumari Chandrika 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 Kumari 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 agency. 9. The Tribunal observed that appellant-claimant Dinesh Kumar being employed as Mechanical Engineer in Engineers India Ltd. Delhi and getting a salary of Rs. 25,00/- 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. 10. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, 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 of 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 Kumari Chandrika Bhatia not been met with unfortunate and untimely death, she would have got job of a teacher either in a 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. 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 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 house wife aged about 51 years at the time of the accident and it is left to the discretion of the Court td award just compensation in favour of her son appellant-claimant. 11. Shri 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. 12. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the 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 legal heirs, 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. 13. The moot question involves for our determination and consideration in the appeals on hand is whether the appellant-claimant Shri T.C. Bhatia is the legal heir of his deceased daughter Kumari Chandrika and also whether Shri Dinesh Kumar an employed son is the legal heir of his father Shri S.R. Bhatia and mother Smt. 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 Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Section 166 of 1988 Act). In Megjibhai Khimji Vira and another v. Chaturbhai Taljabhai and others, (AIR 1977 Guj 195)(1977 ACJ 253) 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 Viras decision (supra) learned Single Judge of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Dole Ram, etc. (ILR (H.R Series) 1981, 58), held that brothers and sisters of the deceased can be held to be within the purview of legal representatives as given in Section 2(11), CPC 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 (Act 4 of 1939) (corresponding to Section 166 of 1988) and dependants5 contemplated by Section-A of Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another, (AIR 1987 SC 1690) (1987 ACJ 561), the Honble Judges in para 9 held as under:— "9. Clause (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 representatives has not been defined in the Act. The expression legal representatives has not been defined in the Act. Section 2 (11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 defines legal representatives 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 authorizes 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 accouunt of a motor vehicle accident and Clause (c) of that sub-section authorizes any agent duly authorized 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 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. 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 any way is a substitute to the extent indicated above for the provisions of Section 1-A of the Fatal Accident Act, 1855 which provides that "every such action or suit shall be for the benefit of 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 that the Claims Tribunal is authorized to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appeas 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 paragraph 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 vehicles 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. 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 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." 14. The Honble Judges went on further and said as under in para 11:— "11. 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 realization 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 Vehicles Accidents 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 bread-winner of the family and if the bread-winner 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 sustantiality modified by the provisions contained in the Act in relation to cases arising out of motor vehicles accidents. We express our approval of the decision in Megjibhia Khimji Vira v. Chaturbhai Taljabhai, (AIR 1977 Guj 195) (supra) 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." 15. In the aforesaid paragaphs of the judgment of the apex Court, the Honble Judges have held that the definition of legal representative incorporated in Section 2 (11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall to the provisions of Section 110-A (1) of Act 1939 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 vehicles accidents are concerned. The Honble Judges expressed their approval of the decision in Megjibhai Khimji Vira and another v. Chaturbhai Taljabhai and others case, (AIR 1977 Guj 195) and held that brother of a person who died in motor vehicles accident was entitled to maintain a petition under Section 110-A of the Act if he was a legal representative of the deceased. 16. Applying the well settled position of law in the present case, we hold Shri T.C. Bhatia father of deceased Kumari Chandrika Bhatia and Shri Dinesh Kumar Bhatia, son of Shri S.R. Bhatia and Smt. Lalita Bhatia who admittedly the accident the legal representative of the deceased and they are entitled to succeed the estate of the deceased. 17. The next question involves for consideration is about the quantum of compensation awardable to the appellants-claimants for the death of K. Chandrika Bhatia, S.R. Bhatia and Smt. Laiita Bhatia. It has come on record that Kumari Chandrika Bhatia was studying in M.Ed, course at the time of her death and appellant-claimant Shri 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. 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 Kumari 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. 2,000-4,000/ per month. It is true that deceased Kumari Chandrika Bhatia was still a student and was not gainfullly employed in job. Considering the education prospects of deceased Kumari 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, Kumari Chandrikas age was hardly 21 years and her father was of 50 years. We are conscious of the fact that Kumari 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 Kumari 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 Shri T.C. Bhatia. Therefore, we hold that had Kumari 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. 1,800/- 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-I claimant Shri T.C. Bhatia, we are of the view that multiplier of 10 would I be just and proper in the present case. Thus, we hold the appellant-claimant Shri T.C. Bhatia is entitled for compensation of Rs. 1800 X 12 X 10= Rs. 2,16,000/-. 18. Considering the expectancy of life of appellant-I claimant Shri T.C. Bhatia, we are of the view that multiplier of 10 would I be just and proper in the present case. Thus, we hold the appellant-claimant Shri T.C. Bhatia is entitled for compensation of Rs. 1800 X 12 X 10= Rs. 2,16,000/-. 18. 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 year old student of B.Sc. 1st year with bright future, in accident in which he was hit by a truck. Again in Shanti Bai and others v. Charan Singh and others, (1998) 5 SCC 359), Honble 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, 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." 19. In the aforesaid two appeals filed by Shri Dinesh Kumar, we hold that he is the legal representative of deceased Shri S.R. Bhatia and Smt. Lalita Bhatia 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 Shri 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 Smt. 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. 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 6,000/- per month. Taking into consideration the income of Rs. 6,000/- per month of Shri S.R. Bhatia and deducting the amount being spent by him on her personal expenses and maintaining this 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 appellant Shri Dinesh Kumar was a house wife 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 Smt. 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. 20. The additional amounts awarded in favour of the appellants-claimants in these appeals shall be deposited by the respondent-Insurance Company with 12% interest per annum from the date of the institution of claim petitions till actual deposits in the Registry of this Court. The said deposits shall be made within 8 weeks from this date. 21. 20. The additional amounts awarded in favour of the appellants-claimants in these appeals shall be deposited by the respondent-Insurance Company with 12% interest per annum from the date of the institution of claim petitions till actual deposits in the Registry of this Court. The said deposits shall be made within 8 weeks from this date. 21. 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. Appeals allowed.