ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 21.12.2002 passed by 1st Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal Saraikela, in Compensation Case No. 43 of 1997 whereby a sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- was awarded being compensation on account of death of late Umesh Karji and married son of original claimant/appellant, namely. Munsi Karji. 2. The claim case was filed by Munsi Karji, father and Laxmi Karji Grand mother of the deceased. Both the claimants died during pendency of the claim application and the present appellant who was the son of claimant Munsi Kajrji was substituted in their place. 3. The fact of the case in short is that the deceased Umesh Karji who was aged about 20 years was working as Khalasi in Maxi-taxi bearing registration No. BR-18-6117. The said vehicle met with an accident on 1.2.1997 while it was coming from Kandra to Saraikella. In the said accident the deceased received multiple injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the same day. Claimants case is that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month as salary and his contribution to the family was Rs. 1,200/- per month. Claimant therefore claimed Rs. 3,60,000/~ by. way of compensation. The Claims Tribunal after considering all the facts and evidence on record awarded compensation of Rs. 1,92,000/- including the amount of interim compensation of Rs. 50.000/- which was not paid to the claimant till the date of the award. 4. Mr. Ram Kishore Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel firstly contended that after the death of original claimant, the present claimant/respondent was substituted on the ground that he is the brothers son and also adopted son of claimant No. 1. According to the learned Counsel, the present claimant who is brothers son of original claimant No. 1 is not the legal representative. Learned Counsel further submitted that unless the claimant is declared adopted son-by a competent Court of law, no compensation can be awarded in his favour. Learned Counsel also brought to our notice the fact that the Tribunal awarded interim compensation of Rs. 50.000/- in terms of interim award dated 2.7.1999 and against the said award, appellant/Insurance Company preferred Misc. Learned Counsel further submitted that unless the claimant is declared adopted son-by a competent Court of law, no compensation can be awarded in his favour. Learned Counsel also brought to our notice the fact that the Tribunal awarded interim compensation of Rs. 50.000/- in terms of interim award dated 2.7.1999 and against the said award, appellant/Insurance Company preferred Misc. Appeal No. 122/02 which was disposed of by judgment dated 15.9.2003 directing the Tribunal to dispose of the main application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. 5. From perusal of the record, it appears that In the main application filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. an interim award of compensation was passed by the Tribunal on 2.7.1999. Against the interim Judgment and award dated 2.7.1999 the appellant-Insurance Company filed appeal before this Court being M.A. No. 122/2002. In the meantime, final judgment and award was passed by the Tribunal in the main claim case under Section 166 of the M.V. Act on 21.12.2002. But at the time of hearing of the said M.A. No. 122/2002, learned Counsels appearing for the parties did not bring it to the notice of this Court that Compensation Case No. 43/97 filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act was already disposed of on 21.12.2002. However, on the contrary the only argument advanced by the appellant/Insurance Company was that the substituted claimant failed to prove that he is the adopted son of the original claimant No. 1. This Court therefore, disposed of Misc. Appeal No. 122/2002 by judgment and order dated 15.9.2003 directing the Tribunal to hear and dispose of the main application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act being Compensation Case No. 43/97. The appellant/Insurance Company then filed another application before the Tribunal for review of the judgment dated 21.12.2002 passed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act on the basis of order dated 15.9.2003 passed by this Court In M.A. No. 122/02. The said review petition was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 19.10.2004. The appellant/Insurance Company thereafter, filed the instant appeal challenging the main judgment and award dated 21.12.2002 and also the order dated 19.10.2004 whereby the application for review of the Judgment was rejected by the Tribunal. 6. The said review petition was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 19.10.2004. The appellant/Insurance Company thereafter, filed the instant appeal challenging the main judgment and award dated 21.12.2002 and also the order dated 19.10.2004 whereby the application for review of the Judgment was rejected by the Tribunal. 6. Prom perusal of the judgment dated 21.12.2002 passed under Section 166 of the Act, it is manifestly clear that the Tribunal has considered the question of entitlement of the substituted claimant/ respondent as brothers son/adopted son to continue the claim case for grant of compensation. Paragraph 8 of the judgment reads as under : In course of agreement learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 National Insurance Co. submitted that the present applicant is not legal representative of the deceased since he was not dependent on the deceased and claim to be adopted by the father of the deceased just few days before the death of the father of the deceased but from evidence available on record, it appears that the present claimant is nephew of the father of the deceased and he has been adopted by the father of the deceased. In course of argument, learned advocate for applicant submitted that brothers and sisters are legal representatives of the deceased If parents of the deceased are not alive. In support of his contention, he has relied the ruling of Honble Punjab and Hariyana High Court reported in 2002 (2) TAG 426, in which it has been held that brothers and sisters are legal representatives and can come forward and claim the compensation. This ruling has been passed on the ruling of Honble Supreme Court reported in 2000 (2) ACJ 931. It is not disputed that adopted brothers also come under the definition of brother. Applicant has been adopted by the father of the deceased by registered deed of adoption dated 19.2.1998 which shows that the present applicant has been adopted by original applicant late Munsi Karji. The applicant has also exhibited the death report of applicant No. 1 Munsi Karji Ext. 5/1 and death report of original application No. 2 Ext. 5 which shows that original applicant No. 1 died on 1.3.1991 while original applicant No. 1 who died on 8.6.1997 during pendency of this case. The applicant has also exhibited the death report of applicant No. 1 Munsi Karji Ext. 5/1 and death report of original application No. 2 Ext. 5 which shows that original applicant No. 1 died on 1.3.1991 while original applicant No. 1 who died on 8.6.1997 during pendency of this case. Thus I come to the conclusion that the present applicant being adopted son of the father of the deceased is legal representative of the deceased and he is entitled to get the amount of compensation on account of death of the deceased. In the present case a sum of Rs. 1,92.000.00/- (one lakh and Ninety two thousand only) fixed as compensation including the amount of 50,000/- (Rs. fifty thousand only) which has been awarded under Section 140, M.V. Act to applicant. If this amount is deposited in bank, the applicant will get approximately equal amount which the deceased was given to his family. Thus Issue No. 5 is decided accordingly in favour of the applicant. 7. It is worth to note here that against the impugned judgment and award dated 21.12.2002 the appellant/Insurance Company did not prefer any appeal and it was only after earlier appeal being M.A. No. 122/02 filed against the interim award was disposed of on 15.9.2003, a review petition was filed before the Tribunal for review of the judgment and award passed on 21.12.2002 disposing of the main claim case. After dismissal of the review petition, the instant appeal has been filed in 2004. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we have no doubt in our mind that the conduct of the appellant/Insurance Company is not fair and reasonable, inasmuch as instead of satisfying the award, it has dragged the litigation by filing appeals on technical ground. Admittedly, the substituted claimant is the brothers son of the original claimant No. 1. Even assuming that the substituted claimant was not adopted in accordance with law, the fact remains that after the death of original claimant, he is the legal representative and is entitled to continue the proceeding for grant of compensation. 9. Admittedly, the substituted claimant is the brothers son of the original claimant No. 1. Even assuming that the substituted claimant was not adopted in accordance with law, the fact remains that after the death of original claimant, he is the legal representative and is entitled to continue the proceeding for grant of compensation. 9. As noticed above, the order dated 15.9.2003 was passed by this Court in M.A. No. 122/02 on the assumption that main application under Section 166 of the Act was pending and the counsel appearing for the parties did not bring to the notice of this Court that the claim case was disposed of as far back as in 2002. The appellant therefore, cannot be allowed to take any benefit of the order passed by this Court in M.A. No. 122/02. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Amareshwar Sahay, J. 11. I agree.