Judgment : 1. Brothers and sisters have claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of their sister, aged about 20 years, at the time of accident, which occurred on 13.03.1998. According to the claimants, the deceased was engaged in Tailoring work and earned Rs.2,000/- per month. The appellant-Transport Corporation disputed the manner of accident and submitted that the driver of the bus was not responsible for the accident. According to them, on 13.03.1998, when the bus bearing Registration No. TN 23 N 1030 was proceeding from Thiruvannamalai to Vellore, near Karaiyanchavadi, a Tractor bearing Registration No. TNS 5845, came in the opposite direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the Transport Corporation bus and in the result, the sister of the respondents/claimants, a passenger in the bus, sustained injuries and died. Therefore, the appellant-Transport Corporation submitted that they are not liable to pay compensation. Without prejudice to the above, the appellant disputed the age, income of the deceased and the quantum of compensation claimed under various heads. 2. Before the Tribunal, two witnesses, including the second respondent in this Appeal, sister of the deceased, were examined on behalf of the claimants. Ex. P1-FIR, dated 13.03.1998; Ex.P2-Post Mortem Report, dated 13.03.1998; Ex.P3-Legal Heir Certificate, dated 23.04.2008, were marked on the side of the respondents/claimants. On behalf of the appellant-Transport Corporation, one Mr. Elangovan, has been examined as RW.1 and no document was marked. 3. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Tribunal has found that the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation was responsible for the accident and quantified the compensation at Rs.2,43,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 4. Questioning the finding of the Tribunal, regarding negligence, learned counsel for the appellant-Transport Corporation submitted that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the negligence on the driver of the bus, without considering the evidence let in by the Appellant, in proper perspective. According to her, the Tribunal has failed to consider that the driver of the Tractor alone was responsible for the accident. She also submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider that the claimants were not dependents of the deceased and therefore, the claim itself is not maintainable. Without prejudice to the above, she submitted that the application of 13’ multiplier to the income of the deceased, aged about 20 years, is on the higher side and therefore, the quantum of compensation requires reduction. Without prejudice to the above, she submitted that the application of 13’ multiplier to the income of the deceased, aged about 20 years, is on the higher side and therefore, the quantum of compensation requires reduction. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5. As regards negligence and to prove the manner of accident, the respondents have let in evidence through one of the sisters of the deceased. The Tribunal, having found that the oral testimony of the claimants is supported by PW-2, and corroborated by Ex.P1-FIR, held that the driver of the Transport Corporation bus was responsible for the accident. It is evident from the award that no rebuttal evidence has ken let in, by the driver of the Transport Corporation bus. No other material has been placed before this Court also. In these circumstances, when the finding of the Tribunal is tested on the Principles of preponderance of probability, in the absence of examination of the driver of the bus and any concrete rebuttal evidence placed before this Court, the finding cannot be terms as perverse and hence, the same is confirmed. 6. As regards the entitlement of the claimants to maintain a Claim Petition, in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another, 1987 ACJ 561, the Gujarat High Court held that all the Legal heirs and the Legal Representatives of the deceased would maintain a Claim petition under Section 110-A compensation to the nephews of the of the deceased. Considering the divergence of opinion expressed by the various High Courts as regards the maintainability of the claim under Section 110-A [now under Section 166(1), by persons other than wife, husband, parents and child of a person, who dies on account of the Motor Vehicles Accident, the Supreme Court in Paragraph 10, held as follows: “10. 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. 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. 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 representative” has not been defined in the Act. Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 defines “legal representative” 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 authorises 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 account of a motor vehicle accident and clause (c) of that sub-section authorises any agent duly authorised by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased to make it. The Proviso to subsection (1) of Section 110-A of the Act appears to be of some significance. The Proviso to subsection (1) of Section 110-A of the Act appears to be of 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 of the Act thus expressly states that (i) an Application for compensation may be made by the legal representatives of the of the deceased or their agent, and (it) 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.” Interpreting Section 110-A [now amended as Section 166(1), vis-à-vis, a corresponding provision in the Fatal Accidents, Act 1855, the Apex Court further held that, --- “These provisions are not merely procedural provisions. They substantively after 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 it is 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 a 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. While confirming the decision of Gujarat High Court in Megjbhai Khimji’s case, the Supreme court at paragraph 12, held that, --- “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 Section 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. 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 Section 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 and 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 as 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 the Indian family brothers, sisters and brothers’ children ad some times foster children live together and they are dependent upon the bread-winner of the family and if the bread-winner I 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 substantially modified by the provisions contained in the Act in relation to cases arising out of motor vehicles accidents.” 7. In Vidya Dhar Dubey and others v. U.P. State Road Transportation Corporation, 1997 ACJ 1388 , the Allahabad High Court considered a case as to whether the claim for compensation for death in motor accidents filed by the claimants, who are dependants, but they are not the legal heirs of the deceased, such as parents, wife and son could be entertained. Following the decision reported in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prbhabhai, 1987 ACJ 561 (SC), the Allahabad High court held that the emphasis under the Motor Vehicles Act is dependency and that the near and dear, including the brother’ children can also be dependants. 8. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., v. Naresh Chandra Agarwal and others, 2000 ACJ 931 , the parents of the deceased were not alive and therefore, the brother of the deceased in the capacity of legal representative, preferred a claim. 8. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., v. Naresh Chandra Agarwal and others, 2000 ACJ 931 , the parents of the deceased were not alive and therefore, the brother of the deceased in the capacity of legal representative, preferred a claim. The award passed by the Tribunal, following the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation’s case, was confirmed by the Allahabad High Court, holding that the Legal Representative including the brother of the deceased is entitled to get compensation. 9. In Govindasamy v. Ravi and others, 2003 (1) MLJ 253 , a Division Bench of this Court held that the deceased father’s younger brother is entitled to compensation, as he was also a legal representative as per the Hindu Succession Act. 10. In Kishan Lal v. Bharosi Lal, 2003 (2) ACC 225, the deceased was the elder brother of claimant-appellant Nos.1 and 4 and brother-in-law of appellant Nos.2 and 5 and father of appellant No.3 before the High Court. The deceased was unmarried and he had adopted a son, appellant No.3. The maintainability of the Claim Petition, on behalf of brothers, adopted son and other relatives, was one of the issues. The Tribunal, without giving any opportunity to the parties, held that inasmuch as the deceased was an unmarried person, the appellant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 were not entitled to maintain the Claim Petition and that they were not the dependants. As no document was filed to prove adoption, the claim of the appellant No.3 was also rejected. Thus, in toto, the Tribunal dismissed the Claim Petition. After referring to Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which provides that an Application for compensation arising out of the accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 can be made, Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.S. Verma (as he then was), opined as follows: “5. Thus, in toto, the Tribunal dismissed the Claim Petition. After referring to Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which provides that an Application for compensation arising out of the accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 can be made, Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.S. Verma (as he then was), opined as follows: “5. I find merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellants that if the contrary view is taken, in the event of death of a person in accident who happens to be an unmarried or whose parents are not living, it shall amount to as if no compensation can be claimed in regard to the death of such person and such compensation will lead to such an unpleasant situation that the defaulting negligent driver will escape the liability for any such accident for the purpose of compensation, I fully agree with learned Counsel for the Appellants in this regard and specially when in the present case, Application for compensation had also been filed including an adopted son, adoption of which could only be proved by leading evidence as per law.” So saying, the order of the Tribunal, dismissing the Claim Petition, was set aside and that the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal, to proceed with the Claim Petition on merits. 11. In Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C., v. Venkataramappa K.S., 2003 (3) ACC 457 (DB), the deceased was an agricultural labourer and there were no Class I heirs. The claim for compensation was made by the married sisters and brother, who were not dependants, but living together. Before the Tribunal, an objection was raised by the Transport Corporation that the claimants were not dependants on the deceaed and therefore, they are not entitled to compensation. However, the Tribunal, granted dependency compensation, in addition to the compensation awarded under the conventional damages. Aggrieved the same, the State Transport Corporation preferred an Appeal to the High Court, reiterating the said averments. The High Court has framed following questions for consideration. However, the Tribunal, granted dependency compensation, in addition to the compensation awarded under the conventional damages. Aggrieved the same, the State Transport Corporation preferred an Appeal to the High Court, reiterating the said averments. The High Court has framed following questions for consideration. “(1) Whether the brothers and sisters of the deceased can maintain a Claim Petition even though they were not depending upon the income of the deceased for their maintenance?” (2) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the excessive side?” Following the judgment in Supreme Court in Gujarat State Transport Corporation’s case, (cited supra) and taking note of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, which state that when a male Hindu die intestate, his property has to be devolved according to the provision of Section 8 i.e., (a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class I of the Schedule; and (b) secondly, if there is no heir of Class I then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class II of the Schedule, the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, held that the claimants, viz., brothers and sisters, who fall under Class-II heirs, as per Hindu Succession Act, will entitle to maintain the claim. 12. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashwin Vrajlal Rajgor, 2005 (2) TN MAC 51 (DB): 2005 ACJ 1618 , a division Bench of Gujarat High Court considered the entitlement of the brother’s son and brother’s wife (sister-in-law) of the deceased, similar to that of the present case, for compensation. Following the judgment in Megjbhai Khimji Vira v. Chaturbhai Taljabhai, 1977 ACJ 253 (Guj.), wherein, a Division Bench held that the claim for compensation arising out of use of motor vehicle can be maintained by bothers and nephews, who are the legal heirs and also of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gujarat State Road Trans. Corpn., v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, 1987 ACJ 561 (SC), the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Ashwin Vrajlal Rajgor’s case, held that in the absence of Class-I legal representatives to represent the estate of the deceased, a brother’s son, a Class-II heir and the brother’s wife are entitled to claim compensation for the death of the deceased. Corpn., v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, 1987 ACJ 561 (SC), the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Ashwin Vrajlal Rajgor’s case, held that in the absence of Class-I legal representatives to represent the estate of the deceased, a brother’s son, a Class-II heir and the brother’s wife are entitled to claim compensation for the death of the deceased. The Division Bench has also taken note of the line of succession, as provided under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and held that the Appellants therein were entitled to compensation. 13. While deciding the dependency, the relevant factor to be proved by the beneficiaries is that by the death of a person on account of the accident, they have lost a reasonable probability of pecuniary advantage and it is for the Court to evaluate the pecuniary loss, on the basis of evidence tendered by them. In this context, it would be useful to extract the judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kayicha Umma, ILR 1987 (1) Ker 388: “The beneficiaries have to prove that by the death of a person they lost a reasonable probability of pecuniary advantage. What is reasonable is a question of fact which varies from case to case and has to be determined with reference to the evidence on record. In the absence of statutory guidelines, the Court has to make an estimate of the pecuniary loss suffered by the members of the family of the deceased. The Court has to evaluate the pecuniary loss resulting from death on the basis a proper appreciation of the relevant circumstances and hard realities.” 14. In the case on hand, when the Legal Representatives of the deceased have come forward with the plea that they have lost a reasonable probability of pecuniary advantage, in the absence of any objection or contrary evidence, let in by the appellant-Transport Corporation that the claimants are not dependents of the deceased, this Court is not inclined to accept the objection raised for the first time before this Court. 15. On the quantum of compensation, it is the case of the respondents that prior to death, the deceased was working as a Tailor and earned Rs.2,000/- per month. No doubt, no document has been filed in support of her avocation and income. 15. On the quantum of compensation, it is the case of the respondents that prior to death, the deceased was working as a Tailor and earned Rs.2,000/- per month. No doubt, no document has been filed in support of her avocation and income. In the absence of the parents, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, the deceased, aged about 20 years, would have certainly lived with any one of the kith and kin and contributed her services to that family. In my considered view, expecting documentary proof from small traders, skilled workers, who are engaged in self-employment and labourers cannot be justified, as they do not, normally register themselves with any agency meant for the purpose. Having regard to the age of the deceased, it could reasonably be presumed that she would have engaged herself in the some capacity, say in this case, as a Tailor. Even otherwise she would have contributed her services to the family, which can always be quantified at a reasonable sum of R.2,000/- per month. When the services of a housewife is taken into consideration for the purpose of awarding compensation, this Court is of the view that the services of an unmarried sister or brother to the family can also be taken into consideration for computing compensation. In such a view of the matter, the determination of the monthly income of the deceased, at Rs.2,000/- cannot be said to be arbitrary and irrational. At the time of accident, the age of the first respondent, elder brother, as per Ex.P3, Legal Heir Certificate, was 49 years. Therefore, having regard to the age of the claimants and that of the deceased, the Tribunal has applied the multiplier applicable to the claimants, i.e., 13 and computed the dependency compensation and therefore, there is manifest illegality. 16. In addition to the dependency compensation, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000 for Transportation, Rs.5,000/- for Funeral Expenses Rs.5000/-for Loss of Estate, Rs.20,000/- for loss of Love and Affection to the respondents/claimants, who are four in number. Quantum of compensation under the head loss of Love and Affection is inadequate. The total compensation of Rs.2,34,000/-to the loss of life of a 20 years old unmarried girl, cannot be said to be excessive or bonanza to the family. 17. Quantum of compensation under the head loss of Love and Affection is inadequate. The total compensation of Rs.2,34,000/-to the loss of life of a 20 years old unmarried girl, cannot be said to be excessive or bonanza to the family. 17. In view of the above, the contentions raised by the appellants-Transport Corporations raised by the appellant-Transport Corporation cannot be countenanced and hence, quantum of compensation, I con firmed. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.