ORDER : 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 23.08.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Jodhpur in Claim Case No. 573/2017 (N.C.V. No. 573/2017) whereby the claim petition as preferred by the claimants has been rejected. While deciding Issue No. 2, learned Tribunal observed that the claimants failed to prove that they were the legal heirs of deceased Karni Dan and hence, they were not entitled to any compensation. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as per section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an application for compensation can be filed by any of the legal representatives of the deceased. The said provision does not prescribe for “legal heirs” but talks of “legal representatives.” Further, the proviso to the said section provides that the application for compensation can be made by any of the legal representatives for and on behalf of other legal representatives too. Therefore, rejection of the claim petition by the learned Tribunal on count of the claimants being not the legal heirs of the deceased is totally erroneous. 3. Learned counsel further submitted that it was proved on record that the deceased was an unmarried person and the claimants were related to him being his grandsons. The deceased was residing with the claimants only and even if the claimants are not proved to be dependants of the deceased, they would be entitled to compensation as law governing the motor accident cases nowhere prescribe that only the dependants of the deceased would be entitled to compensation. In support of his submissions, counsel relied upon the following judgments: i. Dr. Gangaraju Sowmini v. Alavala Sudhakar Reddy and Ors. 2016 ACJ 1416 (decided on 01.02.2016-APHC). ii. Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel & Ors. v. United India Insurance and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 394 . iii. National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender and Ors. (2020) 11 SCC 356 . 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment as well as the judgments as relied upon by the counsel. 5. To adjudicate the fact whether the present claimants are entitled to compensation, their relation with the deceased is essential to be taken into consideration so as to determine whether they fall in the category of “legal heir” or “legal representative.” As per the claim petition, the claimants averred themselves to be grandsons of the deceased. 5. To adjudicate the fact whether the present claimants are entitled to compensation, their relation with the deceased is essential to be taken into consideration so as to determine whether they fall in the category of “legal heir” or “legal representative.” As per the claim petition, the claimants averred themselves to be grandsons of the deceased. 6. AW1 Bhanwar Dan (one of the claimants), in his cross-examination, deposed as under: ^^e'rd dj.khnku th ds dksbZ iq= o iq=h;k ugh FkhA dj.khnku th vfookfgr FksA oDr nq?kZVuk dj.khnku th ds ekrk firk thfor ugha FksA dj.khnku th esjs nknkth ds HkkbZ FksA esjs nknkth dk uke Hkh[knku th gSA dj.khnku th ds lxs HkkbZ ugh FksA esjs firkth nks HkkbZ FksA esjs pkpk ds Hkh rhu csVs gS ftuds uke vtqZujke] xksfoan o fxj/kkjh gSA vtqZujke ljdkjh v/;kid gS vkSj os nksuks ikbZ djrs gSA eS [ksrh dk dk;Z djrk gwWA e'rd dj.khnku esjs lxs nknk ugha FksA eS lky ds 5&7 yk[k :i;s dek ysrk gWwA esjs ,d iq= o ,d iq=h gSA dj.khnku th oa'kkoyh ds vk/kkj ij nknkth FksA** 7. AW2 Madan Singh, when cross-examined on the aspect, admitted as under: ^^esjs lxs nknkth dk uke Hkh[knku Fkk ftudk lxk dksbZ HkkbZ ugha FkkA dj.khnku esjs nknk th ds pkpk ds iq= FksA esjs nknk ds nks iq= Fks ftuesa ,d esjs firk nqxkZnku o ,d mejnku esjs pkpk gSA esjs firk ds ge rhu iq= gSA mejnku ds rhu larkus gsA mejnku th ds ,d iq= ds nks cPps gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd mejnku th dk ,d iq= v/;kid gS vkSj nks vHkh ikbZ dj jgk gSA eS okgu pkyd dk dk;Z djrk gw vkSj [ksrhckMh Hkh djrk gWwA eS izfrekg 10&12 gtkj :i;s dek ysrk gWwA ge izkFkhZx.k dj.khnku th ds fof/kd mrjkf/kdkjh gks bl ckcr- gekjs ikl dksbZ nLrkost ugh gS vkSj uk gh dksbZ fy[kk ih gSA** He further admitted as under: ^^;g dguk lgh gS dh dj.khnku th esjs nknk ds pkpk ds yMds gks bl ckcr- eSus fj'rsnkj dk dksbZ nLrkost is'k ugh fd;k gSA** 8. AW3 Ram Dayal, the alleged eye witness, when cross-examined on this aspect, admitted as under: ^^eS Hkaojnku] enuflag o gjhflag iq= nqxkZnku dks esa cpiu ls gh tkurk gwa ge ,d gh xkao ds gSA djuhnku esjs fj'rs esa dkdkslk yxrs FksA djuhnku vfookfgr FksA djuhnku ds dksbZ HkkbZ ugh gS cgus gSA izkFkhZx.k djuhnku ds lxs nknkslk ugh FksA izkFkhZ ds nknkth ds firk vkSj e'rd ds firk lxs HkkbZ FksA djuhnku th ds firkth dk uke fHk[knku FkkA DysesaV ds nknkth dk uke Hkh fHk[knku Fkk tks nksuksa fHk[knku vyx vyx O;fDr FksA** 9. A bare perusal of the above statements makes it clear that the present claimants definitely, are not the 'legal heirs' of the deceased. Whether they can be termed to be the 'legal representatives' and are entitled to file the present claim petition or to compensation, it would be essential to analyse the law governing the said aspect. 10. Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 defines term “legal representative” as under: “legal representative” means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who inter-meddles 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.” 11. Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that an application for compensation may be made by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. The proviso to Section 166 provides as under: “Provided that where 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.” 12. In terms of the above provisions of law, to conclude whether the present claimants fall within the definition of 'legal representative', it would be relevant to analyse whether they represent the estate of the deceased or whether the estate of the deceased devolved on them. AW2 Madan Singh, when cross-examined with the specific question whether any estate of the deceased devolved on him/them, he admitted that he did not have any document to prove so. AW2 Madan Singh, when cross-examined with the specific question whether any estate of the deceased devolved on him/them, he admitted that he did not have any document to prove so. He further admitted that no document was placed on record even to suggest their relationship with the deceased as alleged by them. 13. Even if the said version is assumed to be true, it is clear that there were other surviving legal representatives of the deceased also who stood in the same capacity as that of the claimants. None of them have been impleaded nor averment in the claim petition regarding them has been made. It is only when AW2 Madan Singh had been cross examined on the issue, he admitted the fact of there being other similarly situated legal representatives also surviving. 14. This Court is of the specific opinion that the relationship of the claimants with the deceased as alleged by them in the claim petition is nowhere proved on record. Further, the requirement as provided vide Proviso to Section 166(1)(c) has also not been fulfilled. Further more, there is not even a suggestion that the claimants were the dependents of the deceased. Further, even going by the averments of the claimants, what can be adduced is that the deceased was the son of uncle of the grandfather of the claimants. 15. Coming on to the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, there is no quarrel on the issue that a claim petition can be laid by any of the legal representatives of a deceased. But then, as held in Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel's case (supra), the issue as to who is a legal representative or its agent, is an issue of fact and has to be decided one way or the other depending on the facts of a particular case. As analysed above, the present claimants can neither be termed to be dependents of the deceased, nor his legal heirs or legal representatives. 16. In view of the above analysis, the finding of the learned Tribunal to the effect that the claim petition is not maintainable at the behest of the claimants, they not been the legal heirs, cannot be affirmed. Legally, a claim petition can be maintained even by the legal representative who is essentially not a legal heir. 16. In view of the above analysis, the finding of the learned Tribunal to the effect that the claim petition is not maintainable at the behest of the claimants, they not been the legal heirs, cannot be affirmed. Legally, a claim petition can be maintained even by the legal representative who is essentially not a legal heir. But then, in view of the findings as recorded above, the present claimants cannot even be termed to be 'legal representatives' and hence, the claim petition at their behest cannot be said to be maintainable. Issue No. 2 thus stands decided against the claimants. 17. In view of issue No. 2 having been decided against the claimants, the impugned judgment and award dated 23.08.2023 does not deserve any interference and the appeal is hence, dismissed. 18. The stay petition and the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.