Dependency is a crucial factor in determining entitlement to compensation for legal representatives under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

( 1 ) THE short question that arises in this case as argued by mr. Banik is that whether the expression "legal representative" appearing in Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M. V. Act) includes married daughters in order to enable her to get compensation on account of death of her father irrespective of the question whether the daughter was dependent on the victim or not simply because of her being a legal representative. He had relied on various decisions with which we will be dealing with at appropriate stage.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel forthe respondents points out that the legal representative who are dependent on the victim are only entitled to compensation. So far as the right to get compensation either under Section 140 or under Section 166 there is no distinction except the question of establishment of liability which differs in the two kinds of cases. But it is only the dependency, which is the only determining factor on which entitlement to compensation is adjudged.

( 3 ) WE find from the Scheme of the Act that the entitlement to the payment of compensation arising out of the accident provided in the M. V. Act is based on the compulsory insurance of the motor vehicle. We are of the view that the Statute has made a distinction in between the right to apply and right or entitlement to the compensation. So far as Section 166 read with Rule 329 of the M. V. Act and the West Bengal Motor Vehicles rules, 1989 respectively are concerned, it refers to legal representative. The expression "legal representative" has not been defined either in the act or in the Rules. Therefore, the widest meaning has to be ascribed on the expression "legal representative" that may follow from the definition in section 2 (11) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even then. Section 166 M. V. Act had made it wider in the sense that even an agent of the legal representative or any one of them is entitled to make an application. Section 166 M. V. Act does not confer any right or entitlement to get the compensation but is procedural providing for right to make an application for. claim. It is distinct from the right or entitlement to get the compensation.

( 4 ) SECTION 165 provides jurisdiction to the Court to determine as to whom the compensation is payable. Even if all the legal representatives apply, the Court has discretion to pay the compensation to some of them and to exclude the others with further discretion to apportion. The Scheme of compensation as it appears has been embodied in the Statute with an object to save vragrancy of the dependent of the victim. Therefore, the dependency of the legal representative is one of the factors, which is required to be taken into account. It is not that all the legal representative would be entitled to compensation. It is a compensation for the loss. The loss may arise from various factors. It is not only dependency but also loss of association or company. But, this loss of association is not an independent question, which is only one of the factors in arriving at the quantum of the compensation. Question of loss of association would arise only when it is found that person-claiming loss of association was dependent on the victim. Unless this dependence of found, there is no question of compensation for loss of association. Even if we accept the proposition that without dependence, one is entitled to compensation on account of loss of association, then also it has to be proved that the victim was in association with the claimant.

( 5 ) THUS, dependency is a prima facie factor for obtaining compensation even though one may be the legal representative of the victim. Unless the dependency is proved, the factors relating to the compensation would not be relevant. Even if it is held to be relevant then also one has to prove that the victim was in association with the claimant.

( 6 ) MR. Banik has relied upon the decision in the case of Gujarat state Road Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai