Judgment :- 1. Challenging the awards of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- respectively, dated 29.08.2006 and made in MCOP Nos.263 and 308 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Pudukkottai, the 4th respondent Insurance Company, has approached this Court by way of these appeals. 2. Theappeals in CMA(MD)Nos.1317 and 1318 of 2009 have been emerged, out of the common award, dated 29.08.2006 and as the Appellant and the respondents are one and the same, these two appeals have been clubbed together and disposed of in this common judgment. 3. The facts which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of these two appeals may be summarized briefly as under:- That on 25.04.2000 at about 1.45 p.m. the deceased Aruna and her minor son Kothandaraman (since deceased), who is the 1st Claimant in MCOP Nos.263 & 308 of 2000 were travelling in an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.TN-46-A-3166 belonging to the 5th respondent herein. When they were proceeding towards L.I.C office, in which the deceased Aruna was working, a lorry bearing registration No.TN-33-6039 belonging to the 3rd respondent herein, came in an uncontrollable speed and dashed against the front portion of the auto-rickshaw and as a result of which, the inmates of the auto-rickshaw had sustained severe injuries, which includes the driver. Soon-after, the occurrence, they were removed to Government Hospital, Perambalur and the deceased Aruna was taken to Trichy Hospital, but she had succumbed to injury on the way. The claim petition in MCOP No.263 of 2000 was filed on behalf of the injured minor boy, Kothandaraman (since deceased) through his grand-parents before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Pudukottai, claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Similarly, the parents of the deceased Aruna, being her legal representatives had filed another claim petition in MCOP No.308 of 2000 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(Chief Judicial Magistrate), Pudukkottai, claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-towards the compensation. 4. The owner as well as the insurer of the lorry and the owner as well as the insurer of the auto-rickshaw were impleaded as parties to the proceedings. The husband of the deceased Aruna, one Ravichandran was also impleaded as 5th respondent, in both the claim petitions. However, the respondents 1, 3 and 5 remained ex-parte even before the Tribunal. On the other hand, the respondent 2 and 4 alone had contested the claim petitions on various grounds. 5. The husband of the deceased Aruna, one Ravichandran was also impleaded as 5th respondent, in both the claim petitions. However, the respondents 1, 3 and 5 remained ex-parte even before the Tribunal. On the other hand, the respondent 2 and 4 alone had contested the claim petitions on various grounds. 5. During the pendency of the claim petitions, the injured boy minor Kothandaraman had passed away. Hence, the parents of the deceased Aruna had prosecuted both the claim petitions in MCOP Nos.263 and 308 of 2000 and they were clubbed together, as they were emerged out of the very same accident. 6. Onappreciation of the evidences available on record, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had found that the driver of the auto-rickshaw had proportionately contributed his negligence to the accident. Further, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had also found that the minor boy Kothandaraman, the Claimant in MCOP No.263 of 2000 is entitled to get a sum of Rs.30,000/-towards the compensation for the injury sustained by him. Similarly, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had also found that the Claimants in MCOP No.308 of 2000 are entitled to get a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Aruna. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had also directed the respondents 2 & 4 to pay the above said award amounts on behalf of the respondents 1 and 3, in proportionate to their shares i.e., 50%:50%. Challenging the awards of the Tribunal, the 4th respondent alone has approached this Court by way of these two appeals. It is apparent that the 2nd respondent therein, being the insurer of the lorry, has not challenged the awards. 7. Heard both sides. 8. Obviously, two claims have been made in this case. One is for the injuries sustained by the minor boy Kothandaraman (since deceased), the other one is for the death of the deceased Aruna, who is none other than the daughter of the respondents 1 and 2 herein. The accident has not been disputed. As observed earlier, the minor boy Kothandaraman is the son of the deceased Aruna, when both were travelling in an auto-rickshaw to go to LIC office, in which the deceased Aruna was working, the accident was taken place. 9. The accident has not been disputed. As observed earlier, the minor boy Kothandaraman is the son of the deceased Aruna, when both were travelling in an auto-rickshaw to go to LIC office, in which the deceased Aruna was working, the accident was taken place. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant Insurance Company has submitted that the respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to the compensation as they are not the legal representatives of the Minor boy Kothandaraman (since deceased) as well as the deceased Aruna. 10. It is pertinent to note here that the 6th respondent herein is the husband of Aruna and even in the claim petitions, the claimants have clearly stated that the whereabouts of the 6th respondent are not known since 1993. However, the claimants have impleaded him as one of the parties on the respondents side. 11. It is also revealed from the records as well as from the awards of the Tribunal that even in-spite of service of notice to the 6th respondent, he remained ex-parte along with the other respondents viz., R3 and R5. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, while advancing his arguments has submitted that for the past several years, both the deceased Aruna as well as the minor boy Kothandaraman (since deceased) were under the care and custody of her parents viz., the claimants herein and that since they are the only persons available to represent the estate of the deceased, they are very much entitled to claim the compensation. 13. As adumbrated supra, the 3rd respondent Insurance Company has not challenged the awards. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2/Claimants that the deceased Aruna was about 35 years at the time of occurrence and she was also working as a Computer Engineer. He has also submitted that the Tribunal has observed in page 28 of its order stating that the respondents 1 and 2/ Claimants were depending upon their deceased daughter Aruna and since, she was aged about 35 years, based on the age of her father, i.e. the first respondent/Claimant, the multiplier was determined at 5. 14. The Tribunal has also observed in its order that the deceased Aruna was not living along with her husband at the time of accident. 14. The Tribunal has also observed in its order that the deceased Aruna was not living along with her husband at the time of accident. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased Aruna on the basis of Ex.P2 was determined at Rs.9,800/-. The annual income of the deceased was determined at Rs.1,17,600/-. 15. On application of the multiplier system 5, the loss of the family of the deceased was determined at Rs.5,88,000/-. After giving deduction of 1/3rd, the 2/3rd remainder of Rs.3,92,000/- was determined as the actual loss of income of the family. Besides this, the Tribunal had also award a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards the loss of love and affection and another sum of Rs.4,000/- towards the funeral expenses. Totally, the tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. Similarly, the Tribunal had also decided that the minor boy Kothandarman (since deceased) was entitled to get Rs.30,000/-towards injuries sustained by him. Since he was died, during the pendency of the claim petition, that amount was awarded to his grand-parents. viz., the parents of the deceased Aruna. 16. In so far as these two appeals are concerned, it is important to note here that the 4th respondent, being the insurer of the lorry has not challenged the awards and hence, the question of competency of the respondents 1 and 2 to receive the awards cannot be raised, in the absence of the other respondents. Because the 4th respondent, being the insurer of the lorry was also directed to pay 50% of the award amount towards negligence of the driver of the lorry. 17. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/Claimants in support of his argument has placed reliance upon the decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Naresh Chandra Agrawal and others, reported in 2000 ACJ 931 . In this case, it has been held that “the words legal representative have not been defined under the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, we are required to understand the aforementioned expression with reference to its ordinary dictionary meaning. The Division Bench of High Court of Allahabad, while deciding the case has also sought the assistance of the decision in Gujarat State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Ramabhai Prabhatbhai, 1987 ACJ 561 (SC). Therefore, we are required to understand the aforementioned expression with reference to its ordinary dictionary meaning. The Division Bench of High Court of Allahabad, while deciding the case has also sought the assistance of the decision in Gujarat State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Ramabhai Prabhatbhai, 1987 ACJ 561 (SC). In this case, it is held that the 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 and hence legal representatives including brothers of the deceased victim of a motor accident are entitled to get compensation under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939. 18. On coming to the instant case on hand, the respondents 1 and 2/Claimants 1 and 2 can very well be described as the legal representatives of the deceased Aruna, have alone represented the estate of Aruna and the minor boy Kothandaraman. Hence, there cannot be any impediment preventing from receiving the awards amount. 19. Further, this Court has come to the conclusion on the basis of the materials available on record that the driver of the lorry as well as the driver of the auto-rickshaw have contributed their respective part of negligence in the ratio of 70%:30% and hence, the appellate Insurance Company being the insurer of the auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.TN 46-A-3166 is liable to pay 30% of the award amount in both appeals, where as the 4th respondent is the Insurance company being the insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-33-F-6039 is liable to pay 70% of the award amounts to the respondents 1 and 2/Claimants 1 & 2. 20. Keeping in view of this fact, this Court is also of view that the respondent/claimants 1 and 2 are the legal representatives of the minor Kothandaraman (since deceased) as well as the deceased Aruna. 21. In the result, both the appeals are allowed in part. No costs.