Judgment N.K.Mody, J. ( 1. ) Case is listed in default of P.F. for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Learned counsel for appellant prays for dispensing with services of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Prayer is accepted. Services of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are dispensed with at the risk of appellant. ( 2. ) This order shall also govern the disposal of M.A. Nos. 420 and 422 of 2005 as all the appeals have been decided by one award dated 21.7.2004 passed by the Twentieth M.A.C.T., Indore in Claim Case Nos. 261, 262 and 263 of 2003 and in all the appeals parties are one and the same. ( 3. ) Short facts of the case are that the appellants filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal alleging that on 30.5.99, deceased Mohan was going with his wife Maithli and daughter Prathna in a Matador bearing No. MP 09-S 2547. Further case of the appellant was that said Matador met with an accident with a truck bearing registration No. MP 09-KA 9927 which was driven by respondent No. 2, owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 3. It was alleged that because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, an accident took place and Mohan with all the aforesaid members of the family died on spot. It was alleged that driver of Matador also expired. In the claim it was alleged that appellants are L.Rs. and dependent on the deceased. The claim petition was contested by respondent No. 3 on various grounds including on the ground that appellants are not dependent on the deceased. ( 4. ) After framing of issues and recording of evidence, learned Tribunal dismissed all the claim petitions holding that appellants failed to prove that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, against which the present appeals have been filed. ( 5. ) Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned Tribunal committed error in dismissing the claim petitions. It is submitted that deceased Mohan was travelling in a Matador while he was going to Shirdi. It is submitted that the driver of Matador expired and criminal case was registered against the driver of offending truck who is respondent No. 2 herein. It is submitted that appellants examined Dharamraj who was the eyewitness to explain in what circumstances the accident occurred. It is submitted that the driver of Matador expired and criminal case was registered against the driver of offending truck who is respondent No. 2 herein. It is submitted that appellants examined Dharamraj who was the eyewitness to explain in what circumstances the accident occurred. Apart from this, criminal case was registered against respondent No. 2. In the facts and circumstances there was no ground for dismissing the claim petition. The learned counsel further submits that even if it is found that driver of Matador in which the deceased was travelling was at fault, then too so far as the appellants are concerned, it was a case of composite negligence and in no circumstances, the claim petition could have been dismissed. So far as compensation is concerned, learned counsel submits that appellants are brothers of the deceased. Reliance was placed on a decision of Honble Apex Court in the matter of Gujarat State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, 1987 ACJ 561 (SC), wherein Honble Supreme Court has held that, "In 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 in an accident, there is no justification to deny them compensation relying upon the provisions of Fatal Accidents Act". ( 6. ) Reliance was also placed on a decision of this court in the matter of Balwant v. Omprakash, M.A. No. 2134 of 2007; decided on 26.2.2008, wherein after placing reliance on a decision in the matter of Gurmail Singh v. Pepsu Road Trans. Corpn., 2003 ACJ 225 (PandH), wherein Punjab and Haryana High Court held that brothers of the deceased can claim compensation for the death of the deceased where parents are not alive, this court held that elder brother of the deceased is entitled to claim compensation. Learned counsel for appellants further placed reliance on a decision in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramya Raghavan, 2006 ACJ 2347 (Karnataka), wherein High Court of Karnataka has held that claim petition filed by a married daughter living separately is entitled for compensation on account of death of her mother and also observed that proof of actual dependency is not necessary. Reliance was placed on a decision of Division Bench of this court in the matter of Chandan Singh v. S.E.W. Construction Co. Reliance was placed on a decision of Division Bench of this court in the matter of Chandan Singh v. S.E.W. Construction Co. Ltd., 2003 ACJ 1382 (MP), wherein the claimant was the father of the deceased, it was held that, "Compensation cannot be denied to any L.R. on the ground that he did not depend on the deceased for survival". ( 7. ) Learned counsel submits that in the facts and circumstances there was no justification in dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant. ( 8. ) Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that after taking into consideration the fact that appellants are elder brothers of the deceased and were serving in the bank, learned Tribunal has rightly held that appellants were not dependent on the deceased. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances no illegality has been committed by the learned Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition. ( 9. ) The words legal representative is defined under section 2 (11) of Civil Procedure Code, which reads as under: " Legal representative means 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." ( 10. ) In the matter of Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2007 ACJ 1279 (SC), Honble Apex Court had an occasion to consider whether the married daughter is entitled for compensation as she was not dependent on the deceased and observed as under: "As observed by this court in Custodian of Branches of BANCO National Ultra-marino v. Nalini Bai Naique, AIR 1989 SC 1589 , the definition contained in section 2(11), Civil Procedure Code is inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is not confined to legal heirs only. Instead it stipulates that a person who may or may not be legal heir competent to inherit the property of the deceased can represent the estate of the deceased person. It includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate even without title either as executors or administrators in possession of the estate of the deceased. All such persons would be covered by the expression legal representative. As observed in Gujarat State Road Trans. Corpn. It includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate even without title either as executors or administrators in possession of the estate of the deceased. All such persons would be covered by the expression legal representative. As observed in Gujarat State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, 1987 ACJ 561 (SC), a legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parents and child." ( 11. ) In the present case deceased were travelling in a Matador and met with an accident with a truck. Since appellants have examined Dharamraj, eyewitness and criminal case was registered against respondent No. 2 and also respondent No. 2 remained ex parte and did not turn up in witness-box to state in what circumstances the accident occurred, learned Tribunal committed error in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that appellant has not impleaded the owner and insurance company of the offending Matador. Apart from this, even if it is assumed that driver of the offending Matador was negligent, then so far as appellants are concerned, it was a case of composite negligence and in no circumstances the claim petition filed by the appellants could have been dismissed. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, it is true that appellants are well placed and appellant No. 1 is retired from bank service. One of the sons of appellant No. 1 is working as doctor in USA. It is just possible that the appellants were not financially dependent on the deceased but it cannot be denied that in number of respects, appellants were dependent on the deceased. In the facts and circumstances appellants are entitled for compensation. ( 12. ) Keeping in view the aforesaid position of law and also keeping in view the fact that appellants are the elder brothers of the deceased and are well settled not dependent financially upon the deceased, it can safely be said that the appellants are dependent and are entitled for compensation on account of his death in the motor accident and the learned Tribunal committed error in dismissing the claim petition holding that appellants are not the dependants and are not entitled for compensation on account of death. In the present case deceased was travelling in a Matador and met with an accident with a truck. In the present case deceased was travelling in a Matador and met with an accident with a truck. Since the appellants have examined Dharamraj eyewitness and criminal case was registered against the respondent No. 2 and also respondent No. 2 remain ex parte and did not turn up in witness-box to state that in what circumstances the accident occurred, learned Tribunal committed error in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that appellant has not impleaded the owner and insurance company of the offending Matador. Even if it is assumed that driver of the offending Matador in which the deceased was travelling was negligent, then too, so far as appellants are concerned, it was a case of composite negligence and keeping in view the law laid down in the matter of Sushila Bhadoriya v. Madhya Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn., 2005 ACJ 831 (MP), wherein it was held that there cannot be apportionment of the liability of joint tortfeasors. In case both the joint tortfeasors are impleaded as party and if there is sufficient material on record, then the question of apportionment can be considered by Claims Tribunal. However, on general principles of law, there is no necessity to apportion the inter se liability of joint tortfeasors, findings of the learned Tribunal for dismissing of the claim petition on account of non-impleading the driver, owner and insurance company of Matador as party cannot be allowed to sustain and is hereby set aside. ( 13. ) So far as amount of compensation is concerned, since no assessment has been made by the learned Tribunal, therefore, the case could have been remanded to the learned Tribunal for assessment of compensation. However, since appellants are elder brothers and financially well settled and were not dependent on the deceased financially, but were dependent on the deceased for number of reasons, this court thinks fit to award a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation, which includes all the heads including no fault liability. ( 14. ) In view of this the appeal filed by the appellants stands allowed. The impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal stands set aside. Appellants shall be entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of application. ( 15. ) With the aforesaid observations, appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. The impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal stands set aside. Appellants shall be entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of application. ( 15. ) With the aforesaid observations, appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Appeal disposed of.