( 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