JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. By the medium of this appeal, the appellant-Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company has questioned the award, dated 3rd December, 2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba Division, Chamba (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petition No. 24 of 2007/2006, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,22,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, was awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents No. 1 to 5, (for short, the “impugned award”), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. The claimants, driver and owner have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far as it relates to them. Brief Facts: 3. The claimants, being victims of the motor vehicular accident, had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. It is averred in the claim petition that on 25.12.2005, Pawan Kumar was traveling in vehicle (Taxi Cab) bearing registration No. JK-08A-3145, which was being driven by driver, namely, Kishan Chand, rashly and negligently and at about 12.30 a.m., near Biana Mor Tehsil Salooni, District Chamba, caused the accident, in which Pawan Kumar sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 4. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. 5. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether Shri Pawan Kumar died due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. JK-8A-3145 by its driver (Late Sh. Kishan Chand), as alleged? …OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation as claimed. If so, its quantum and from whom? ….OP Parties. 3. Whether late Shri Kishan Chand was not holding and possessing a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question at the desired time. If so, its effect? …OPR-2 4. Whether the vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged. If so, its effect? …OPR-2 5. Whether the vehicle was not having a valid registration certificate. If so, its effect? …OPR-2 6. Relief.” 6. The claimants have examined Dr. If so, its effect? …OPR-2 4. Whether the vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged. If so, its effect? …OPR-2 5. Whether the vehicle was not having a valid registration certificate. If so, its effect? …OPR-2 6. Relief.” 6. The claimants have examined Dr. Subhash Chauhan (PW-2), Diwan Chand (PW-3), Head Constable Shish Pal (PW-4) and statement of claimant Smt. Gohdi Devi was recorded. The respondents have not led any evidence. Thus, the evidence led by the claimants has remained unrebutted. 7. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, passed the impugned award, whereby the insurer-Insurance Company was asked to satisfy the impugned award. 8. There is no dispute on issue No. 1. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on the aforesaid issue are upheld. 9. Onus to prove issues No. 3 to 5 was upon the insurer. The insurer has not led any evidence. Thus, it has failed to discharge the onus. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the aforesaid issues are upheld. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company argued that the claim petition was not maintainable so far as it relates to respondents No. 2 and 5, who are brothers and sisters of the deceased. 11. The argument addressed by the learned Counsel for the appellant is misconceived for the following reasons. 12. Dependant or legal representative of the deceased, who has died in a motor vehicular accident, can file a claim petition. Claimants No. 2 to 5 were minors at the relevant time i.e. the date of accident, are legal representatives of the deceased and were dependants. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 15. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in a case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus N. Appi Reddy and others, reported in 2013 ACJ, 545, has also laid down the same principle. 16. The Apex Court in a case titled as Smt. Manjuri Bera versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1474, held that even a married daughter of a deceased, though not dependant on deceased, is entitled to compensation, if she is ‘legal representative’ of the deceased. 17. 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 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. 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. 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 bread-winner of the family and if the breadwinner 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.” 18. This Court in FAO No. 71 of 2007, titled Smt. Samantra Devi & others versus Sanjeev Kumar & others, decided on 17th October, 2014, also laid down the same principle. 19. In view of the ratio laid down by the apex Court, Andhra Pradesh High Court and this Court in the aforesaid judgments, the argument addressed by the learned Counsel for the appellant is turned down. 20. Learned Counsel for the appellant also argued that the amount of compensation is excessive. 21. Claimant No. 1 has lost her son and respondents No. 2 to 5, who were minors at the time of accident and dependant upon the deceased, have lost their brother. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the claim petition, pleadings and the evidence on the file, has rightly assessed the compensation, cannot be said to be excessive, in any way. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 2 are upheld. 22. Learned Counsel for the appellant-insurer has also argued that the Tribunal has fallen in error in rejecting the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the reply filed on behalf of the insurer. 23. I have gone through the pleadings and the record. I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the aforesaid application. 24. Having said so, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 25. 23. I have gone through the pleadings and the record. I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the aforesaid application. 24. Having said so, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 25. The Registry is directed to release the award amount in favour of claimants, strictly as per the terms and conditions, contained in the impugned award. 26. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the file of the claim petition.