JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 21st December, 2006, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ?the Tribunal?) in M.A.C. Petition No. 19/03 RBT 29/05/03, titled as Samantra Devi & others versus Sanjeev Kumar & others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,75,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization alongwith costs came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and against respondent No. 3-insurer of scooter bearing registration No. HP-20A-4899 (hereinafter referred to as ?the impugned award?). Brief facts: 2. Deceased-Pardeep Kumar, who was butcher by profession, became victim of a motor vehicular accident on 16th March, 2003, when he was travelling on scooter, bearing registration No. HP-52-0833, at about 9.30 p.m., near Village Behdala, was hit by another scooter, bearing registration No. HP-20A-4899, driven by one Shri Raju, being owned by Shri Sanjeev Kumar, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Both the scooterists died in the said accident. 3. The claimants-appellants filed claim petition for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 4. The respondents resisted the claim petition on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Tribunal on 2nd May, 2006: ?1. Whether deceased Pardeep Kumar had died on account of rash and negligent driving of scooter No. HP- 20A-4899 being driven by Sh. Raju at the relevant date and time as alleged? ...OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, how much and from whom? ...OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged? ...OPR-1&2 4. Whether the claim petition is incomplete, vague and does not disclose any cause of action, as alleged, if so its effect? ...OPR-3 5. Whether the driver of scooter No. HP-20A-4899 was not holding effective driving licence as alleged, if so, its effect? ...OPR-3 6. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven against the terms and conditions of the policy as alleged? ...OPR-3 7. Whether the claim petition is bad for misjoinder of parties, as alleged? ...OPR-4 8. Relief.? 6. The claimants have examined HC Paramjit Singh as PW-1, Dr. ...OPR-3 6. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven against the terms and conditions of the policy as alleged? ...OPR-3 7. Whether the claim petition is bad for misjoinder of parties, as alleged? ...OPR-4 8. Relief.? 6. The claimants have examined HC Paramjit Singh as PW-1, Dr. Satinder Chauhan as PW-2, Shri Mangal Singh as PW-4 and one of the claimant, Smt. Sumantra Devi, herself stepped into the witness box as PW-3. The claimants have filed copies of the FIR as Ext. PW-1/A and post mortem report as Ext. PW-2/A in support of their case. The respondents have not examined any witness. However, Shri Ram Kumar and Shri Sanjeev Kumar, owners of both the scooters, have stepped into the witness box as RW-1 and RW-2, respectively. 7. The insurer has not led any evidence, thus the evidence has remained unrebutted so far the same relates to it. 8. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that both the scooterists were rash and negligent and the accident was outcome of their contributory negligence. Further, after making assessment, held that the claimants-appellants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 4,80,000/-, but as the accident was outcome of contributory negligence, the liability of insurance was fixed at 50%, i.e. Rs.2,40,000/-. After granting compensation under various heads, the claimants-appellants were held entitled to the total compensation to the tune of Rs.2,75,000/- and respondent No. 3-insurer was saddled with liability. 9. The respondents, i.e. owners-insured and the insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 10. The claimants-appellants have questioned the impugned award on the ground that the accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving of scooter, bearing registration No. HP-20A-4899, thus, the claimants-appellants were entitled to entire compensation, as assessed by the Tribunal under the head 'loss of source of dependency' and respondent No. 3-insurer was to be saddled with the entire liability. 11. The claimants-appellants have questioned the impugned award on the ground that the accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving of scooter, bearing registration No. HP-20A-4899, thus, the claimants-appellants were entitled to entire compensation, as assessed by the Tribunal under the head 'loss of source of dependency' and respondent No. 3-insurer was to be saddled with the entire liability. 11. Another ground of attack is that the Tribunal has also fallen in error in not granting compensation in favour of the minor sisters of the deceased, i.e. claimants No. 2 to 4, i.e. Pami, Reena and Rinki, minor daughters of late Shri Bhajan Lal, who were dependent upon the deceased as he was the sole bread earner of the family being the eldest male in the family as they had already lost their father, Shri Bhajan Lal. 12. I have perused the pleadings, gone through the evidence, oral as well as documentary, and also perused the impugned award. The Tribunal has fallen in error, while passing the impugned award, for the following reasons: 13. The Tribunal has lost sight of the fact that the claimants No. 2 to 4, i.e. the minor sisters of the deceased, were dependent upon the deceased, which has not been disputed by any of the parties. 14. The Apex Court in a case titled as Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad versus Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another, reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1690, held that brother of a deceased is also a legal representative, provided he is dependent. 15. The same view has been taken by a Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in a case titled as Gian Singh and others versus Ram Krishan Kohli and others, reported in AIR 2002 Jammu and Kashmir 82, while holding that sisters and brothers of a person, who dies in accident, are entitled to maintain petition under Section 166 of the MV Act if they are legal representatives of the deceased. 16. The Apex Court in a latest case titled as Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel and Anr. versus United India Insurance & Anr. etc., reported in 2014 AIR SCW 1051, has taken note of various judgments and held that brothers, sisters, brothers' children and some times, the foster children are entitled to maintain claim petition, provided they are dependent. 16. The Apex Court in a latest case titled as Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel and Anr. versus United India Insurance & Anr. etc., reported in 2014 AIR SCW 1051, has taken note of various judgments and held that brothers, sisters, brothers' children and some times, the foster children are entitled to maintain claim petition, provided they are dependent. It is apt to reproduce paras 10, 11, 15 and 16 of the judgment herein: ?10. From the aforesaid provisions it is clear that in case of death of a person in a motor vehicle accident, right is available to a legal representative of the deceased or the agent of the legal representative to lodge a claim for compensation under the provisions of the Act. The issue as to who is a legal representative or its agent is basically an issue of fact and may be decided one way or the other dependent upon the facts of a particular case. But as a legal proposition it is undeniable that a person claiming to be a legal representative has the locus to maintain an application for compensation under Section 166 of the Act, either directly or through any agent, subject to result of a dispute raised by the other side on this issue. 11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company tried to persuade us that since the term `legal representative' has not been defined under the Act, the provision of Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, should be taken as guiding principle and the claim should be confined only for the benefit of wife, husband, parent and child, if any, of the person whose death has been caused by the accident. In this context, he cited judgment of this Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. Raman Bhai Prabhatbhai & Anr., AIR 1987 SC 1690 . In that case, covered by the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939, the claimant was a brother of a deceased killed in a motor vehicle accident. The Court rejected the contention of the appellant that since the term `legal representative' is not defined under the Motor Vehicles Act, the right of filing the claim should be controlled by the provisions of Fatal Accident Act. The Court rejected the contention of the appellant that since the term `legal representative' is not defined under the Motor Vehicles Act, the right of filing the claim should be controlled by the provisions of Fatal Accident Act. It was specifically held that Motor Vehicles Act creates new and enlarged right for filing an application for compensation and such right cannot be hedged in by the limitations on an action under the Fatal Accidents Act. Paragraph 11 of the report reflects the correct philosophy which should guide the courts interpreting legal provisions of beneficial legislations providing for compensation to those who had suffered loss. ?11. 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 realisation of compensation and that is provided by Sections 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 an 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 an Indian family brothers, sisters and brothers' children and some times foster children live together and they are dependent upon the breadwinner of the family and if the bread-winner is 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. We express our approval of the decision in Megjibhai Khimji Vira v. Chaturbhai Taljabhai, (AIR 1977 Guj.195) and hold that the brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to maintain a petition under Section 110-A of the Act if he is a legal representative of the deceased.? 12. ….................... 13. …................... 14. ….................. 15. On coming to know about the High Court judgment the appellants filed a review petition in which they gave all the relevant facts including the constitution of the society appellant no.1 in support of their claim that a `Brother' of the Society renounced his relations with the natural family and all his earnings and belongings including insurance claims belonged to the society. These facts could not have been ignored by the High Court but even after noticing such facts the review petition was rejected. 16. A perusal of the judgment and order of the Tribunal discloses that although issue no.1 was not pressed and hence decided in favour of the claimants/appellants, while considering the quantum of compensation for the claimants the Tribunal adopted a very cautious approach and framed a question for itself as to what should be the criterion for assessing compensation in such case where the deceased was a Roman Catholic and joined the church services after denouncing his family, and as such having no actual dependents or earning? For answering this issue the Tribunal relied not only upon judgments of American and English Courts but also upon Indian judgments for coming to the conclusion that even a religious order or organization may suffer considerable loss due to death of a voluntary worker. The Tribunal also went on to decide who should be entitled for compensation as legal representative of the deceased and for that purpose it relied upon the Full Bench judgment of Patna High Court reported in AIR 1987 Pat. 239 , which held that the term `legal representative' is wide enough to include even ?intermeddlers? with the estate of a deceased. The Tribunal also referred to some Indian judgments in which it was held that successors to the trusteeship and trust property are legal representatives within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure.? 17. Viewed thus, any legal representative, who is dependent on deceased, can file a claim petition for grant of compensation being the dependent. The Tribunal also referred to some Indian judgments in which it was held that successors to the trusteeship and trust property are legal representatives within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure.? 17. Viewed thus, any legal representative, who is dependent on deceased, can file a claim petition for grant of compensation being the dependent. Thus, it is held that the claimants No. 2 to 4 were also entitled to compensation. 18. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month and has deducted one third towards his personal expenses, which is not in accordance with the principle of granting compensation read with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , which was upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari & Ors. versus Madan Mohan & Anr., reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120, in terms of which one fourth was to be deducted towards the personal expenses. 19. While making guess work and after going through the pleadings, it can be safely held that the deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month; after deducting one fourth towards his personal expenses, the appellants-claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.3,800/- per month. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 22 years at the relevant point of time. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 12'. As per the Schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles Acts, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ?the MV Act?) read with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) upheld by the larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari's case (supra), multiplier of 15' was applicable. Thus, it is also held that multiplier of 15' is applicable. 20. The FIR stands proved, perusal of which do disclose that the accident was outcome of contributory negligence of both the scooterists. There is also other evidence on the file which can be made basis for holding that the accident was outcome of contributory negligence. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident was outcome of the contributory negligence and has rightly fixed the liability of the insurance at 50%. 21. There is also other evidence on the file which can be made basis for holding that the accident was outcome of contributory negligence. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident was outcome of the contributory negligence and has rightly fixed the liability of the insurance at 50%. 21. Having said so, it is held that the appellants-claimants have lost their source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 3,800/- x 12 = Rs. 4,56,000/- x 15 = Rs.6,84,000/-. As the liability of insurance has rightly been fixed at 50% by the Tribunal, the appellants-claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.3,42,000/- under the head 'loss of source of dependency'. The appellants-claimants are also held entitled to Rs. 15,000/- under the head 'loss of love and affection', Rs. 10,000/- under the head 'loss of estate' and Rs.10,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses'. Hence, the appellants-claimants are entitled to total compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,77,000/- (Rs.3,42,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- + Rs.10,000/-) with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 22. Respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation before this Registry within eight weeks. The total amount of compensation be released in favour of the claimants in equal shares through payee's account cheque. 23. Having glance of the above discussions, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove. 24. Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.