JUDGMENT 1. This order disposes of Misc. Appeal No. 273/2001 and Misc. Appeal No. 288/2001. 2. Briefly stated relevant facts are that deceased Satyanarayan Sharma was employee of M.P. Electricity Board on the post of Helper. He was going on a job on 10.9.1988 in a jeep bearing registration No. CPH-228 belonging to M.P. Electricity Board. It was hit by truck No. MPW-9903, which was being driven by respondent No.3 in a rash and negligent manner. Satyanarayan Sharma suffered serious injuries and died as a result of same on 11.9.1988. Parents of Satyanarayan Sharma and Santosh Kumar Sharma, alleged adopted son of the deceased Satyanarayan Sharma, submitted a claim petition under section 110 A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.6,42,356/-. The offending truck was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company, which submitted the written statement refuting the claim of compensation. This apart, it was stated that Santosh Kumar Sharma is not adopted son of the deceased. 3. Claim case was registered at No. 5/1989. During its pendency parents of the deceased Satyanarayan Sharma died and claimant appellant No. 1 was substituted in their place. Similarly Santosh Kumar Sharma, the claimant/appellant No.2 was shown by way of amendment as the son of Late Satyanarayan Sharma. However, it is pertinent to note that in paragraph 6 of the claim petition it has been pleaded right from beginning that claimant/appellant No.2 is son of real brother of the deceased Satyanarayan Sharma. It was further pleaded that Satyanarayan Sharma was unmarried and had taken in adoption the claimant No.2. The deceased had also declared the claimant No.2 as nominee in M.P. Electricity Board. 4. The Claims Tribunal vide impugned award dated 25.1.2001 held that the claimants/appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,05,920/- as compensation. However a sum of Rs. 76,968/- received from the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act is found liable to be deducted. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 28,952/- has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal under the impugned award against the non-applicants in joint and several manner. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the Oriental Insurance Company preferred Misc. Appeal No. 273/2001 on the ground that adoption having not been duly proved the impugned award is not sustainable in law. 6. The claimants preferred Misc. Appeal No. 288/2001 for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 7. Heard learned counsel at length. 8. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the Oriental Insurance Company preferred Misc. Appeal No. 273/2001 on the ground that adoption having not been duly proved the impugned award is not sustainable in law. 6. The claimants preferred Misc. Appeal No. 288/2001 for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 7. Heard learned counsel at length. 8. It may be seen that claimant No.1 namely Hari Shankar Sharma is son of deceased Satyanarayan Sharma whereas claimant No.2 namely Santosh Kumar Sharma is stated to be adopted son of deceased Satyanarayan. As regard relationship of claimant No. 1 there is no dispute. However alleged adoption claimed by Santosh Kumar Sharma (claimant No.2) was denied in specific in the written statement by the Insurance Company. This being so, it was obligatory on the part of claimant No.2 to prove the alleged adoption. 9. Date of birth of deceased Satyanarayan Sharma is 14.2.1954. Thus, the alleged adoption by him if at all could have taken place after enforcement of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. 1956. Section 5 of the said Act lays down that no adoptions shall be made after the commencement of the said Act by or to a Hindu except in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter II of the said Act, and any adoption made in contravention of the said provisions shall be void. Requisites of valid adoption are described in section 6. Clause (vi) of section II lays down that in every adoption the child to be adopted must be actually given and taken in adoption by the parents or guardian concerned or under their authority with intent to transfer the child from the family of its birth. 10. Claimant No.2 is son of Hari Shankar Sharma who has not been examined to prove that claimant No.2 was actually given in adoption. Ramcharan father of the deceased, has admitted in paragraph 3 of his statement that no giving and taking for adoption was performed. There is no other evidence on record to establish that Santosh Kumar was actually given and taken in adoption. This apart, it may be seen that Santosh Kumar has been described in the Nomination Form (Ex. P/2) as nephew of the deceased Satyanarayan. 11. High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. There is no other evidence on record to establish that Santosh Kumar was actually given and taken in adoption. This apart, it may be seen that Santosh Kumar has been described in the Nomination Form (Ex. P/2) as nephew of the deceased Satyanarayan. 11. High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lalita Sharma and others (2007 ACJ 1033) has held that even in claim petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 adoption if disputed is to be proved in due manner. It is true that the sole witness produced by the Insurance Company did not make any version against the alleged adoption, however, it is for the claimants themselves to prove their entitlement. In the facts and circumstances, it is held that claimant No.2 has failed to prove the alleged adoption of him by the deceased Satyanarayan. 12. Learned Claims Tribunal has found in paragraph 50 that parents and, claimant No.2 were dependent on the income of the deceased. Parents have already died during pendency of the claim petition. Thus, the claimant No.2 alone is left as a claimant. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enables a legal representative to claim compensation arising out of accident by a motor vehicle. The term "legal representative" is not defined under the said Act. It is defined in section 2 (11) of the Code of Civil Procedure who need not be necessarily a legal heir. This being so, the claimant No.2 is not disentitled to seek amount of compensation. 13. I may also successfully refer for this purpose to paragraph 14 of the apex Court's decision in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another (1987 ACJ 561), which is as follows :-- "14. Before concluding we may add that though the Act was extensively modified after the receipt of the report of the Law Commission, Parliament did not choose to amend section 110 A of the Act by defining the expression 'legal representative' in relation to claims under Chapter VIII of the Act as the 'spouse, parent and children of the deceased' as recommended by the Law Commission. The Law Commission had observed in its 85th report that it would be appropriate to assign to the expression 'legal representative' the same meaning as been given to the expression 'representative' for the purposes of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and that would effectively carry out the purpose of social justice underlying Chapter VIII of the Act, to which the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 was the nearest approximation. This recommendation was made after referring to the divergent views expressed by the various High Courts on the meaning of the expression 'legal representative' in section 110A of the Act. The fact that Parliament declined to take any action on the recommendation of the Law Commission of India suggests that Parliament intended that the expression' legal representative' in section 110 A of the Act should be given a wider meaning and it should not be confined to the spouse, parent and children of the deceased." 14. Nephew may be a legal representative for the purpose of claim petition as held by Division Bench's decision of High Court of Gujarat in the case Megjibhai Khimji Vira and another v. Chaturbhai Taljabhai and others ( 1977 ACJ 253 ). 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the claimant No.2, namely, Santosh Kumar Sharma is found entitled to amount of compensation even in the absence of proof of adoption. Misc Appeal No. 273/2001 accordingly stands dismissed though for different reasons mentioned hereinabove. 16. Coming to Misc. Appeal No. 288/2001, it has been contended on behalf of the claimants/appellants that the amount of compensation has been awarded on lower side since it was arrived at without taking into consideration the future prospects of the deceased Satyanarayan; secondly, multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied in place of multiplier of 10 looking to the deceased's age of 34 years and 6 months at the time of accident. 17. As regards alleged future prospects, neither the claimants has made any specific pleading in the claim application nor have placed any material on record in respect of future prospects of definite nature. The deceased was Helper in the service of M.P. Electricity Board. Channel of promotion based on seniority was not proved at all. Similarly, prospects of annual increment etc. have also not been established by placing on record the relevant material. The deceased was Helper in the service of M.P. Electricity Board. Channel of promotion based on seniority was not proved at all. Similarly, prospects of annual increment etc. have also not been established by placing on record the relevant material. This being so, the Claims Tribunal is not found to have committed any mistake in not taking into consideration the alleged future prospects for which no foundation has been laid before it. As regards multiplier, it may be seen that multiplier of 17 would have been applicable had there been proof about adoption. Since the adoption of claimant No.2 is not found proved, the Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in applying multiplier of 10. Accordingly, Misc. Appeal No. 288/2001 is found meritless and the same is hereby dismissed. 18. At this stage, Shri Anand Bharadwaj, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, submitted that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was deposited as interim award by the Insurance Company with the Claims Tribunal, which is also liable to he adjusted. Learned counsel for the claimants fairly expressed no objection to it. This being so, it is directed that the Claims Tribunal would ensure that the amount of Rs. 15,000/-, which was deposited by the Insurance Company, as interim compensation, would be adjusted at the time of execution of the impugned award. 19. Both the appeals stand accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid manner with no order as to costs.