The term 'legal representatives' in section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not restricted to the heirs specified in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Sisters of the deceased can be considered as legal representatives if they were dependent on him. The dependency factor and the extent of dependency should be considered in determining the apportionment of compensation.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the Order no. 4 dated 2nd February, 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, malda in M. A. C. Case No. 323 of 2004. By the impugned order the learned tribunal had allowed the application by the respondent No. 3 praying for dismissal of the said motor accident claim case.

( 2 ) AN application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by the respondent No. 3 as well as the appellants jointly. The respondent no. 3 is the widow of the deceased victim, while both the appellants are the unmarried sisters of him. It was contended on behalf of the respondent no. 3 that she being the widow of the deceased is entitled to the amount of compensation alone and, therefore, the joint petition filed by the respondent no. 3 along with the appellants who are the sisters of the deceased was to be dismissed. It is on record that respondent No. 3 alone has further filed an independent claim case, being M. A. C No. 352 of 2004 under section 163a of the Motor Vehicles Act praying for compensation due to the accidental death of her husband, after the petition under section 166 as above was filed. The respondent No. 3 accordingly filed an application for dismissal of petition under section 166 upon allegation that the same was filed beyond her knowledge and consent. The same has been allowed which is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal.

( 3 ) THE question arises for consideration here is whether the appellants who claimed to be the sisters of the deceased are also entitled to receive compensation along with the respondent No. 3 being the widow of the deceased.

( 4 ) THE respondent No. 3 is undoubtedly a Class I heir under the Hindu succession Act and the appellants are Class II heir. On behalf of the appellants the decision reported in AIR 1987 SC 1690 (Gujarat State Road Transport corporation, Ahmedabad vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Anr.) has been relied upon in support of the proposition that an application for compensation is to be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased. The said decision has been rendered under the provisions of section 110a of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 read with section 1a of Fatal Accidents act, 1855.

( 5 ) TRUE, section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 provided that an application for compensation shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of legal representatives of the deceased, while section 166 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.

( 6 ) IN the said case of GSRTC, Ahmedabad (supra) a boy of 14 years was run over by a vehicle resulting in his untimely death. The petitioners in the said case were the brothers of the deceased who instituted an application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation. It was contended before the Supreme Court that the High Court was in error in awarding compensation in favour of the brothers of the deceased since in law they were not entitled to any compensation under the provision of Fatal accidents Act, 1855. Interpreting section 110a of the Motor Vehicles Act read with section 1a of the Fatal Accidents Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the brothers are also entitled to compensation. The Supreme Court in the said decision has observed in paragraphs 10 and 11 as under:

"10. Among the High Courts in India there is a cleavage in the opinion as regards the maintainability of action under section 110a of the Act by persons other than the wife, husband, parent and child of the person who dies on account of a motor vehicle accident. All these cases are considered by the High Court of Gujarat in its decision in Megjibhai khimji Vira vs. Chaturbhai Taljabhai, AIR 1977 Guj 195 (supra ). The first set of the cases are those which are referred to in paragraph 5 of the above decision which lay down that ev