JUDGMENT : Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 06.12.2006 in O.P. No.1132 of 2004 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda (for short ‘the Tribunal’), appellants – claimants filed the present appeal. 2. Vide the aforesaid order, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘the Act’) claiming compensation for the death of the deceased Somangani Borraiah, brother of the appellants in a road accident occurred on 09.11.2012. 3. The appellants filed OP No.1132 of 2004 stating that they are brothers of the deceased and the deceased was an agriculturist. On 09.11.2002 while the deceased was proceeding to his agricultural lands on his cycle, at about 7.30 a.m., when he reached near the bye-pass road of Lingagiri village, lorry bearing No.AP 37 T 6427 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the deceased and the rear tyre of the lorry ran over the legs of the deceased. Due to the said accident, the deceased fell down and sustained serious injuries to his both legs, hands, face and head. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to the Government Hospital, Huzurnagar and later shifted to the Government Hospital, Nalgonda for better treat. But, on the way to Hospital, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the death of the deceased, the appellants, brothers of the deceased, filed the present claim petition. 4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent owner of the lorry remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent – Insurance Company filed counter denying all the averments of the claim petition. 5. On consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal dismissed the OP vide above said judgment. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellants. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent – Insurance Company. 7. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants herein are the brothers of the deceased, Somagani Borraiah. According to them, the deceased and appellants are joint family members and they used to stay together and the Tribunal, without considering the said fact, dismissed the appeal and did not award any compensation to the appellants, vide impugned judgment. According to them, the deceased and appellants are joint family members and they used to stay together and the Tribunal, without considering the said fact, dismissed the appeal and did not award any compensation to the appellants, vide impugned judgment. Therefore, the appellants filed the present appeal challenging the said judgment. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment reported in Dr. Gangaraju Sowmini v. Alavala Sudhakar Reddy, 2016 (2) ALD 226 (FB) wherein a Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature for the Sate of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad by referring the definition of legal heir under Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, held that a non-dependant heir of the deceased, who died in a motor accident is entitled to lay a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Act, where there is no other dependant legal heir to claim compensation. Learned counsel would further contend that the Full Bench also considered various aspects with regard to legal representatives, who are entitled to lay claims under Section 166 of the Act. With the said contentions, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the application filed by the appellants seeking compensation. 9. Supporting the judgment of the Tribunal, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent - Insurance Company would contend that Section 166 of the Act deals with the application for compensation. As per Section 166 (1) (c) of the Act, an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made, where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, provided 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. He also relied upon the very same judgment of the Full Bench in Dr. Gangaraju Sowmini, referred supra. 10. On perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the wife of the deceased, Somagani Veeramma, filed OP No.1385 of 2002 in the year 2002 claiming compensation and the same was dismissed for default. He also relied upon the very same judgment of the Full Bench in Dr. Gangaraju Sowmini, referred supra. 10. On perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the wife of the deceased, Somagani Veeramma, filed OP No.1385 of 2002 in the year 2002 claiming compensation and the same was dismissed for default. Thereafter, the appellants, brothers of the deceased, filed the present claim petition i.e. OP No.1132 of 2004, in the year 2004. It is also not in dispute that the appellants have not made the wife of the deceased as respondent to the present OP as required under Section 166 (1) of the Act. Moreover, on the analysis of the evidence, the Tribunal gave a finding that the widow of the deceased used to reside in the joint family of the appellants after the death of Borraiah is unbelievable as per her own statement in OP No.1385 of 2002. The Tribunal also gave a finding that there is suppression of fact about filing of OP No.1385 of 2002. With the said findings, the Tribunal has dismissed the OP filed by the appellants claiming compensation. 11. As stated above, as per Section 166 (1) of the Act, it is a statutory obligation on the part of the appellants - claimants to make the wife of the deceased as party to the OP and the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of the legal representative of the deceased. Whereas in the present case admittedly the appellants did not make the wife of the deceased i.e. Veeramma as a party to the claim petition. Admittedly, OP No.1385 of 2002 filed by the wife of the deceased was dismissed for default on 12.07.2005 itself. It is also borne out of record that in OP No.1385 of 2002 also the appellants did not make any attempt to get themselves impleaded. Therefore, the appellants herein failed to comply the mandatory condition of making the wife of the deceased as party to the petition, as per Section 166 of the Act. 12. Moreover the appellants did not produce any evidence either oral or documentary to show that the deceased used to contribute his earnings to them during his lifetime. As per the cause title and also as per the deposition of PW.1, both the appellants are doing agriculture and they are major brothers of the deceased. 13. 12. Moreover the appellants did not produce any evidence either oral or documentary to show that the deceased used to contribute his earnings to them during his lifetime. As per the cause title and also as per the deposition of PW.1, both the appellants are doing agriculture and they are major brothers of the deceased. 13. As discussed supra, the Full Bench of this Court in Dr. Gangaraju Sowmini, referred supra, categorically held that the a non-dependant heir of the deceased who died in the motor accident is entitled to lay a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Act where there is no other dependant legal heir for claiming compensation. Admittedly, in the present case, the appellants, who are having their own source of income, failed to produce any evidence either oral or documentary to show that it is a joint family and the deceased used to contribute his earnings to the joint family. In the absence of the said evidence and moreover since the appellants did not array the wife of the deceased as party to the OP, which is mandatory under Section 166 of the Act, the appeal fails and accordingly, the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.12.2006 in O.P. No.1132 of 2004 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.