S.S. Sodhi, J.
1. The claim here is by the brother for compensation for the loss suffered by him on account of the death of the deceased Narinder Nath Sood. The question which arises at the very threshold is whether the claimant Harbans Lal being the brother of Narinder Nath Sood is entitled to claim compensation ?
2. In dealing with this matter, it deserves note that a brother is not one of the heirs specified under the Fatal Accident Act. Budha v. Union of India and Ors. 1981 Madhya Pradesh, 151 provides a direct precedent for the point raised, where it was held, that an application for compensation under Section 1104A of the Motor Vehicles Act by the brother of the deceased was no maintainable as he was not the legal representative for the purpose of claiming compensation. A similar view is expressed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in Motila Vishwakarma v. Guru Bachan Singh and Ors. 1980 A.C.J. 462.
3. Mr. O.P. Hoshiarpuri, counsel for the claimant on the other hand sought to rely upon the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in The General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore Peerappa Parasappa Sangolli and Ors. AIR 1979 Karnataka 154, where it was held that the brother and the sister of the deceased were entitled to compensation as legal representatives under the head; 'loss to the dependency'' provided they proved their dependency upon the deceased. Even if the position as set out in this authority is accepted as correct, counsel for the claimant could point no material on record to suggest any dependency of the claimant upon the deceased. The pertinent fact here being that the deceased Narinder Nath Sood was the unmarried younger brother of the claimant who had been living with him. In these circumstances, there is no escape from the conclusion that no claim for compensation by the brother Harbans Lal was maintainable in this case.
4. What now remains to be dealt with is an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to implead the sisters of the deceased as parties and co-appellants. There are clearly no grounds to warrant acceptance of this application at this stage. The accident had taken place on September 18, 1976. The award of The Tribunal was given on October 3, 1977 and it was only on January 16, 1978 that the present application was filed. On the face of it the claim for compensation by the sisters stands hopelessly barred by limitation and what is more no explanation or any reason has been set-forth for the condonation of this delay. This application cannot, therefore, but be declined.
5. In the result this appeal as also the Civil Misc. application filed therein are hereby dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.