BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J.

(1). THIS appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is at the instance of the claimants and is directed against an order dated 24th January, 2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Second Court, Hooghly in m. A.C. Case No. 28 of 2001 thereby rejecting the application under Section 166 of the Act filed by the appellants.

(2). THE appellant no. 1 is the only surviving brother and the appellant no. 2 is the nephew of the victim who died bachelor. They filed application under Section 166 of the Act thereby claiming compensation for the death of the victim on the allegation that on 27th November, 2000 the victim was knocked down by a trailor bearing No. WB-11/8382 due to rash and negligent driving. The victim died on the spot and the applicants claimed compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/ -.

(3). THE Insurance Company contested the claim application. According to the Insurance Company, the application was not maintainable, as the applicants had no locus standi to file the claim application. According to the Insurance company, the victim was not an employee of Math and the claimants were not residing in the family of the deceased and, therefore, neither the victim nor the applicants were dependent upon either of them.

(4). THE learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that none of the appellants were dependent upon the deceased and the claimants had also failed to prove that the deceased, immediately before his death, was having any income or that the appellants were deriving some sort of financial benefit from the deceased and in the absence of any dependency, the application was not maintainable.

(5). THE Tribunal, however, held that it was established from the materials on record that the victim died due to an accidental death in the road being knocked down by the offending vehicle due to rash and negligent driving and such vehicle was insured by the Insurance Company.

(6). IN view of the finding that the application was not maintainable at the instance of the appellants, the Tribunal rejected the application.

(7). BEING dissatisfied, the appellants have come up with the present appeal. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we find that the appellant no. 1 is the brother of the victim and it has come in evidence that other brothers are already dead. Such being the position, the only surviving brother must be held to be an heir of the victim according to the Hindu Succession Act. We, thus, find that the appellant no. 1 was definitely the sole heir and legal representative of the victim, and at his instance, the application was maintainable. However, we find substance in the contention of the learned advocate for the Insurance Company that the appellant no. 2 being nephew cannot have any right when his uncle, the appellant no. 1 was alive at the time of death of the victim.

(8). AN application under Section 166 of the Act can be maintained by a legal representative of the decease. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the cases of Hafizun Begum vs. Md. Ikram and others reported in III (2007) ACC 591 (S.C.)and Manjuri Bera vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in II (2007)ACC 365 (S. C.), in terms of Section 166 (1) (c) of the Act any of the legal representatives of the deceased can maintain an application and if all the legal representatives do not join, the other legal representatives not filing application should be made parties to the proceedings. It is the duty of the Tribunal to decide the amount of compensation and specify the person or persons to whom the compensation should be payable. In that context, it was further held that the term "legal representative" would mean the persons as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Code of Civil Procedure i. e. it stipulates that a person, may or may not be the legal heir competent to inherit the property, can nevertheless represent the estate of the deceased. It inc