JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Shri Amit Manohar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri R.C. Pathak, learned counsel for the claimants. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 16.08.2011 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court no. 5, Basti in MACP No. 99 of 2008 in which the learned tribunal has granted Rs. 1,50,00/- as compensation along with 6% simple interest per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that an accident took place on 22.05.2006. Deceased driver Prem Prakash along with owner of the Jeep and other persons returning from Tilak ceremony of nephew of Narsingh Pandey resident of Ladewa to Basti. At night about 10:30 PM near village Bankata when Jeep reached from Manauri Chauraha to railway crossing, a tractor trolly coming in front of the jeep, whose driver driving the tractor trolly very rashly and negligently and dashed the Jeep No. U.P.-51H/1300 and Jeep overturned in a pit and Krishna Kumar Srivastava, Dharmendra, Hanshlal and Bhaagwat Dubey who were sitting in the Jeep died on the spot and others sustained injures including driver and owner of the Jeep. Driver of the tractor trolly along with tractor trolly escaped from the spot. Due to injury, driver of Jeep Prem Prakash got unconscious and during treatment he died. Owner of the Jeep Umashanker Mishra and other injured had seen the accident. The Information of accident was given by the owner of the Jeep to shift his responsibility on the tractor trolly stating the tractor trolly is responsible for the accident and on the basis of the written report, Case Crime No. 806 / 06 under sections 279, 337, 338, 304A IPC was registered for the accident and case was investigated. Since owner of the Jeep and other injured are unable to inform about the registration no. of tractor trolly, driver and owner of the tractor trolly, the Investigating Officer submitted Final Report. Driver Prem Prakash was seriously injured in the accident and was admitted in District hospital, Basti from where after first aid he was referred to Medical College. Thereafter, injured Prem Prakash was admitted in Avatar Hospital, Lucknow for treatment where he died due to injuries sustained in the accident on 23.05.2006 at 10:00 PM. Driver Prem Prakash was seriously injured in the accident and was admitted in District hospital, Basti from where after first aid he was referred to Medical College. Thereafter, injured Prem Prakash was admitted in Avatar Hospital, Lucknow for treatment where he died due to injuries sustained in the accident on 23.05.2006 at 10:00 PM. Post-mortem of the dead body was not conducted as the owner of the Jeep said that he along with Insurance Company will provide compensation. At the time of accident deceased Prem Prakash was 32 years of age and by profession he was driver and was healthy and unmarried person. He was getting Rs. 3000/- per month as salary and Rs. 300/- as monthly food allowance from the owner of the vehicle. Deceased Prem Prakash was residing with the claimant and giving his whole salary to them. Since, owner of the Jeep was the employer of deceased, therefore, he is responsible for the compensation. The Jeep was insured with National Insurance Company and the driver Hari Prakash @ Prem Prakash was having a valid license. Therefore this claim petition was filed by the brother and sister-in-law of the deceased. 4. The National Insurance Company filed a written statement and has denied the facts alleged in the claim petition and has specifically alleged that in absence of cause of contest, the claim petition is not maintainable and may be set aside. At the time of accident age of Prem Prakash was more than 32 years, he was not working as driver and he was also not getting the monthly income of Rs. 3000/- and claimants are not the heirs of the deceased. Claimant no. 1 is the brother of the deceased and claimant no. 2 is the sister-in-law (bhabhi) and claimant no. 2 is dependent of claimant no. 1 and claimant no. 1 is self independent. Therefore, claimants are not entitled to get compensation. It has been alleged that in view of FIR the accident took place because of rashness and negligence by tractor trolly and therefore, claim is not maintainable against the insurance company. The owner of the tractor trolly and driver are not made party. On the date of accident the Jeep was not insured and the driver was not having valid license and the Jeep was being driven in violation of the Insurance policy. The owner of the tractor trolly and driver are not made party. On the date of accident the Jeep was not insured and the driver was not having valid license and the Jeep was being driven in violation of the Insurance policy. The offending vehicle was used as a taxi and on the date of accident it was over loaded and therefore, insurance company is not responsible to pay compensation to the claimant. 5. The owner of the offending vehicle filed written statement and denied that Prem Prakash @ Hari Prakash was not working as a driver of offending Jeep and he was only driving the Jeep in absence of the owner's driver. On the date of incident deceased Hari Prakash @ Prem Prakash was driving the offending Jeep. Ahead him Government vehicle of Nalkoop Vibhag was going on, in which, the Executive Engineer Shri Sohan Ram and certain employees of the department were also sitting. The Government vehicle got trapped in the tractor trolly and overturned on the road side and since the offending vehicle was behind the Government vehicle also overturned because of dazzle of headlight of tractor and in which owner and driver sustained injury. Owner of the offending vehicle has bear all the expenses of funeral and Braham Bhoj. He has not lodged the Case Crime No. 806/06, he also sustained injuries and got fainted and was admitted to District Hospital. The Executive Engineer put pressure on Kotwali police for lodging the F.I.R. He bear all the medical expenses of deceased. Claimants are not the heirs of deceased. Claim petition was not filed in a systematic way. 6. Following issues were framed- 1. Whether Premprakash Pandey died on 22.5.2006 at 10.30 PM when the driver of Jeep UP-51H/1300 and the driver of the tractor trolly driving rashly and negligently dashed and the Jeep overturned? 2. Whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of deceased in the accident? 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable under section 163-A of the MV Act? 4. Whether the petition is defective due to non joinder of the driver and owner of the tractor trolly? 5. Whether the deceased was having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident? 6. Whether the offending Jeep was not insured at the time of accident? 7. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if yes, how much and from whom? 5. Whether the deceased was having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident? 6. Whether the offending Jeep was not insured at the time of accident? 7. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if yes, how much and from whom? 7. Evidence was given from both sides and after hearing both sides, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award aggrieved by the same this appeal has been filed. 8. The appellant has challenged the impugned award on the ground that there was no evidence regarding involvement of the said Jeep in accident, no FIR has been lodged against the Jeep but has been lodged against the driver of tractor trolly and they were not made parties, the deceased was not in permanent employment of the owner, the liability under section 163-A has been wrongly fixed, the income was wrongly assessed and deduction of 50% was not maid as the deceased was unmarried and claimants being elder brother and sister in law were not legally entitled for any compensation. 9. The learned Tribunal on evidence and settled legal principles rightly concluded that the petition under section 163-A was maintainable as the deceased was driving the Jeep when the accident took place. It was also rightly decided that there was no possibility of impleading the tractor owner and driver as they were not traceable and moreover when the petition has been filed under section 163-A. It was established on record that the deceased was having valid and effective driving license at the time of incident and the Jeep he was driving was insured. The learned Tribunal also rightly concluded that in a petition under section 163-A, the issue of negligence or contributory negligence is not significant. Thus, the decision on Issue no 1 to 6 is legally valid and justified and there appears to be no perversity in the finding of the Tribunal. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the claimants being elder brother and bhabhi (sister in law), are not entitled for any compensation. Thus, the decision on Issue no 1 to 6 is legally valid and justified and there appears to be no perversity in the finding of the Tribunal. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the claimants being elder brother and bhabhi (sister in law), are not entitled for any compensation. Section 165 of the M V Act provides for Claims Tribunal and the Explanation provides that claims for compensation includes a claim under section 140 and 163-A. Section 166 of the M V Act provides that in case of injury claim petition can be filed by the injured person himself and in case of death, by all or any of the legal representative of the deceased. Thus, sub-section (1) of section 166 provides: "An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made; a. by the person who has sustained the injury; or b. by the owner of the property; or c. where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or d. by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be; Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not jointed 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." 11. It is pertinent to mention that the above provision of the M V Act speaks in terms of legal representative. If there is no other legal heir of the deceased, the brother is a legal representative and is competent to maintain claim petition. It has been nowhere shown that except brother there was anyone who can represent the estate of deceased. Any person who is to get the property of deceased will be a legal representative. In the instant case the learned Tribunal has found that the name of the claimant has been mutated in revenue records after the death of deceased and both brothers were living in a joint family and their parents have already died. Any person who is to get the property of deceased will be a legal representative. In the instant case the learned Tribunal has found that the name of the claimant has been mutated in revenue records after the death of deceased and both brothers were living in a joint family and their parents have already died. Therefore the learned Tribunal rightly concluded the claimants to be legal representative of the deceased. As such the argument of the learned counsel to appellant that the claimants are brother and bhabhi is only relevant for the purpose of determining dependency which is significant for the purpose of ascertaining the quantum of compensation. 12. The learned Tribunal on the basis of evidence determined the age of the deceased in between 30 to 35 and, therefore, applied the multiplier of 15. In Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 3104 , a multiplier of 16 could have been taken. Therefore the appellant should not be aggrieved by the use of the multiplier of 15. The learned Tribunal finding the deceased to be driver and concluding that he might not have regular assignment, hypothetically, determined the income to be Rs. 2500/- monthly and thus Rs. 30000/- in an year. It cannot be said to be in higher side. The learned Tribunal did not stop here and took the view that after being married, the deceased could spare money out of his income to the extent of only 1/3rd for the claimants and thus made a deduction of 2/3rd and determined the amount of compensation to be only 150000/- which is again in a very lower side. The appellant has submitted for only 50% deduction and therefore, there is no reason for he becoming aggrieved. I find the amount of compensation is in lower side and need not to be disturbed. 13. On the basis of the above discussion, I find no force in appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 14. Appeal is dismissed accordingly. 15. The amount of Rs. 25000/- deposited by appellant at the time of filing the appeal shall be remitted back to the learned Tribunal to be paid to the claimant.