JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1988”) arises out of the award dated 03.09.2014 passed by First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as “Claims Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.72 of 2011 awarding a compensation of Rs.1,23,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum considering that appellant Rai Singh was not dependent on his brother Kalinder Ram, who died in the road accident. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case, are that, on 06.12.2009, at about 5:15 PM, Kalinder Ram and Shivratan Ram, who were working on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III were going to their home at village Sidhama from Ambikapur on motorcycle, at that relevant time, while driving Tractor bearing registration No.CG-15-A-2198 and trolley bearing registration No.CG-15-A-2199 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) by respondent No.1 Dilip Ram rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle, due to which, Kalinder Ram and Shivratan Ram suffered injuries and died. Thereafter, Crime No.792 of 2009 was registered against respondent No.1 at Police Station Ambikapur. 3. Appellant Rai Singh being elder brother of Kalinder Ram (deceased) filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.47,66,000/- pleading therein that Kalinder Ram was his younger brother and he is dependent upon the income of deceased. 4. After appreciating the evidence available on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties learned Claims Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.1,23,000/- holding that respondents being driver, owner and insurer of offending vehicle were liable to satisfy the amount of compensation jointly. Learned Claims Tribunal further held that monthly income of deceased Kalinder Ram, who was working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III was Rs.6,000/- per annum. Appellant Rai Singh was doing the working of agriculture. When deceased Kalinder Ram was working as Shikha Karmi, it was not possible for him to always cooperate with appellant Rai Singh in his agricultural work. Therefore, it was accepted that deceased Kalinder Ram must have helped his elder brother appellant Rai Singh in his agricultural work for only 2 months and on this basis, loss of income for 2 months was determined as Rs.100/- per day, i.e. Rs.6,000/- for 2 months. After applying the multiplier of 18, loss of future income was assessed as Rs.1,08,000/-. Therefore, it was accepted that deceased Kalinder Ram must have helped his elder brother appellant Rai Singh in his agricultural work for only 2 months and on this basis, loss of income for 2 months was determined as Rs.100/- per day, i.e. Rs.6,000/- for 2 months. After applying the multiplier of 18, loss of future income was assessed as Rs.1,08,000/-. Learned Claims Tribunal further awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and thereby awarded total compensation of Rs.1,23,000/-, which has been challenged in this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that according to Section 166 (1) (C) of the Act of 1988, all or any of the legal representative of the deceased in the accident can submit an application for compensation. In the case at hand, parents of deceased Kalinder Ram were already died, deceased Kalinder Ram was unmarried, his elder sister is married and lived in her in-laws house, as such, being the only brother, appellant Rai Singh is legal representative of deceased and dependent upon the income of deceased, but Claims Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the dependency of appellant while calculating the amount of compensation. He further argued that after considering all these factors, amount of compensation needs to be enhanced suitably. He placed reliance in the matters of Manjuri Bera (Smt.) v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another reported in (2007) 10 SCC 643 and Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmadabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Another reported in (1987) 3 SCC 234 , to buttress his submission. 6. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for respondent No.3 has supported the impugned award and argued that appellant was not dependent upon his deceased brother and he has his own source of income, hence, impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal is found just and appropriate. In support of his contention, he placed reliance in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited v. Sharanappa (High Court of Karnataka) reported in 2007 ACJ 2466 . 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 while supporting the impugned award, argued that learned Claims Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case, which requires no interference. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of claim case carefully. 9. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 while supporting the impugned award, argued that learned Claims Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case, which requires no interference. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of claim case carefully. 9. The first and foremost question for disposal of this appeal is whether appellant Rai Singh is entitled for enhanced compensation on account of death of his younger brother Kalinder Ram in the road accident ? 10. Under Section 166 (1) of the Act of 1988, the status of eligible persons applying for compensation has been declared, which also includes all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, which reads as follows:- “166. Application for compensation.-(1) 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 authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be.” 11. The term “legal representative” has not been defined in the Act of 1988 and the same is defined in sub-Section (11) of Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which reads follows: “11. “legal representative” means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued;” 12. In the light of above provision, if I look at the legal status of term “legal representative” in the context of motor accident claim cases, then paragraphs-12 and 15 of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manjuri Bera (supra) are relevant, which are reproduced below for easy reference:- “12. In the light of above provision, if I look at the legal status of term “legal representative” in the context of motor accident claim cases, then paragraphs-12 and 15 of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manjuri Bera (supra) are relevant, which are reproduced below for easy reference:- “12. As observed by this Court in Custodian of Branches of BANCO National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique [1989] Supp (2) SCC 275 the definition contained in Section 2(11) CPC is inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is not confined to legal heirs only. Instead it stipulates that a person who may or may not be legal heir competent to inherit the property of the deceased can represent the estate of the deceased person. It includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate even without title either as executors or administrators in possession of the estate of the deceased. All such persons would be covered by the expression 'legal representative'. As observed in Gujarat SRTC V. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai (1987) 3 SCC 234 a legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child. 15. Judged in that background where a legal representative who is not dependant files an application for compensation, the quantum cannot be less than the liability referable to Section 140 of the Act. Therefore, even if there is no loss of dependency the claimant if he or she is a legal representative will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall be not less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There will be no order as to costs. We record our appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Shri Jayant Bhushan, the learned Amicus Curiae.” 13. Similarly, paragraph-13 of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmadabad (supra) reads as follows:- “13. 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. Similarly, paragraph-13 of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmadabad (supra) reads as follows:- “13. 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 110B 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 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.” 14. Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of above referred judgments, it is quite vivid that appellant Rai Singh is a elder brother of Kalinder Ram; deceased Kalinder Ram was unmarried; parents of deceased have already died and deceased Kalinder Ram has no other legal representative other than the appellant. Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of above referred judgments, it is quite vivid that appellant Rai Singh is a elder brother of Kalinder Ram; deceased Kalinder Ram was unmarried; parents of deceased have already died and deceased Kalinder Ram has no other legal representative other than the appellant. Therefore, in the light of above judicial precedents, appellant is entitled for the status of “legal representative” for all purposes for making an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988. 15. The case law relied upon by respondent No.3 i.e. Sharanappa (supra) is under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923. In the said case, the Court while defining the word “dependent” did not consider the elder brother as dependent. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Manjuri Bera (supra) and Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmadabad (supra), in which, scope of legal heirs/legal representatives is decided and in the light of both the judgments, case of Sharanppa (supra) is of no help to the respondents. 16. On the basis of above discussions, this Court finds that amount awarded in favour of appellant Rai Singh, not considering him as “dependent” upon the deceased, requires further interference. 17. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 18. Perusal of the record would reveal that Vinod Kumar Singh, who is the principal of the school where deceased Kalinder Ram was working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III has proved the salary slip of Kalinder Ram vide Ex.P/10 and fixed his monthly salary as Rs.6,507/-. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I find appropriate to reckon monthly income of deceased as Rs.6,507/-, which is Rs.78,084/- per annum. 19. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I find appropriate to reckon monthly income of deceased as Rs.6,507/-, which is Rs.78,084/- per annum. 19. On the date of accident, age of deceased was determined between 25-26 years, hence, as per judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , 50% amount is to be added towards future prospects because the deceased was a salaried person and was under 39 years of age, which comes to Rs.1,17,126/- (78,084 + 39,042/-). 20. The deceased was unmarried, his parents were already died and appellant is his elder brother, in such a situation, deduction towards personal and caring expenses would be 1/2, which is Rs.58,563/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Pranay Sethi (supra), considering the age of deceased, appropriate multiplier would be 18. After applying multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.10,54,134/-. The claimant is further entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and as per Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , the claimant is further entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Therefore, the claimant would become entitled for total compensation of Rs.11,24,134/-. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Sl. No. Head Calculation Awarded amount 1. Income of deceased @ Rs.6,507/- per month Rs.78,084/-/- per annum 2. 50% of (1) above to be added as future prospects 78,084 + 39,042 = Rs.1,17,126/- 3. 50% of (2) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased 1,17,126 – 58,563 = Rs.58,563/- 4. Compensation after multiplier of 18 applied 58,563 x 18 Rs.10,54,134/- 5. Towards loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 6. Towards loss of love and affection to all the sole claimant Rs.40,000/- 7. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs.11,24,134/- 21. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs.11,24,134/-. After deducting Rs.1,23,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.10,01,134/-. 22. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled to Rs.10,01,134/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs.11,24,134/- 21. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs.11,24,134/-. After deducting Rs.1,23,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.10,01,134/-. 22. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled to Rs.10,01,134/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The other conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 23. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimant in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Claims Tribunal below. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimant resides.