ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. NARESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The solitary point urged by Mr. S.C. Srivastava holding brief for Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant on the question of admission of this appeal is that even though the claimants were not dependants of the deceased, thus the judgment awarding compensation plus interest at the rate of 10 per cent in their favour has been illegally passed and thus the appeal be admitted.

(2.) When we asked a question to Mr. Srivastava as to what is the basis of making his submission, he referred to section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads thus:

(3.) The legislature has not used the word 'dependant' rather it has used the words 'all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased'. The words 'legal representative' have not been defined under the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, we are required to understand the aforementioned expression with reference to its ordinary dictionary meaning.