Judgment Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. 1. Respondents, being the Legal Representatives of Timbu, father of the deceased Kantu, have been awarded a sum of Rs.2 lacs each along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 04.08.2006 till 28.8.2009 with future interest @ 9% per annum from 29.8.2009 till the date of actual payment, in terms of Railways Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 1997. 2. Deceased Kantu was bachelor, who was traveling on ticket No.R08968454 from Jharsuguda to Ludhiana, fell down from the train near Sirhind due to sudden jerk/brake and died. His father Timbu who was the only dependent filed the claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal but during the pendency of the claim petition, he too had died and after his death his other two sons, who are the present respondents No. 1 and 2 filed an application under Rule 26 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 for impleading them as legal representatives, which was allowed on the basis of - document Ex.A-7 and Ex.A-8 and compensation meant to be awarded to father of the deceased was paid to his legal representative. 3. In the present appeal, the only argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that respondents are not the dependents of deceased-Kantu, therefore, the amount of compensation could not have been awarded to them. In response thereto, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that even if for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that the respondents who happened to be brothers of deceased Kantu are not the dependents of deceased-Kantu but it has been awarded as legal representatives of deceased Timbu, who had filed application for claim as dependents of deceased-Kantu. It is also submitted that legal representatives is not defined in the Railways Act, 1989 (for short the Act) but according to Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC) Legal Representative means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person 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. 4. I have heard both learned counsel for the parties. 5. 4. I have heard both learned counsel for the parties. 5. In my considered view, the objection raised by learned counsel for the appellant is totally unfounded and misplaced because even if respondents are not dependents of deceased Kantu it hardly makes any difference because the compensation has been awarded to them not as dependents of deceased-Kantu but as the Legal Representatives of their father Timbu, who filed the claim petition as dependent of deceased Kantu and according to definition of legal representatives, the respondents in any case, would have been entitled to the amount of compensation. Thus, I do not find any illegality in the order of the learned Tribunal in awarding compensation to the respondents as legal representatives of the dependent-Timbu, who had filed claim petition on account of the death of Kantu. 6. In view of the above, present appeal is found to be without any merit and as such the same is hereby dismissed though without any order as to costs.