JUDGMENT : Sushil Kukreja, J. The instant appeal is maintained by the appellant- petitioner under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘MV Act’) against the impugned award dated 23.07.2013, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, District Solan, HP, in MAC Petition No.20-S/2 of 2010, with a prayer to modify the impugned award and the appellant be held entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs.11,00,000/- alongwith interest. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, giving rise to the present appeal, are that the petitioner (appellant herein) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act, whereby he sought compensation on account of death of his uncle Shri Bhagat Ram, who was employed as Beldar with Public Works Department (PWD), Sub Divison Dilman, District Sirmour. It was averred by the petitioner that on 26.12.2009, at about 12:30 p.m., when his uncle Bhagat Ram was working by the side of road near Bal Bharti School, Maryog, he was hit by a vehicle bearing registration No.HR-31F-0072, being driven by respondent No.3 in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the said accident, his uncle sustained multiple injuries on his head and leg and he was taken to IGMC, Shimla for treatment and thereafter he succumbed to the injuries on 03.01.2010. As per the petitioner, at the time of death, the deceased was 53 years old and he was getting salary of Rs.12,000/- per month. It has been averred by the petitioner that the deceased was issue-less and was having only one nephew, i.e. the petitioner, who was brought up by the deceased just like his son. He was residing with the deceased and was dependent upon him. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2-Munish Kumar, being driven by respondent No.3 and it was insured with respondent No.1- Bajaj Alliaz General Insurance Company. Hence, the petitioner sought compensation to the tune of Rs.11,00,000/-. 3. Respondent No.1/Insurance Company, in its reply, raised the preliminary objections qua maintainability, that the vehicle was being driven in violation of the provisions of MV Act, that the driver was not possessing any driving licence etc. On merits, it was averred that the petitioner was not a legal heir of the deceased. 3. Respondent No.1/Insurance Company, in its reply, raised the preliminary objections qua maintainability, that the vehicle was being driven in violation of the provisions of MV Act, that the driver was not possessing any driving licence etc. On merits, it was averred that the petitioner was not a legal heir of the deceased. It was further averred that the vehicle was being driven in violation of the mandatory conditions of the insurance policy and the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence. It was also averred that the amount of compensation, as claimed, was highly exaggerated. 4. In their reply, respondents No.2 and 3, i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle, pleaded that the deceased suddenly started crossing the road on a sharp curve without noticing that vehicle was coming from the opposite side. It was further averred that the deceased himself was negligent and responsible for this accident, hence, they were not liable to pay any compensation. It was pleaded that the claim filed by the petitioner is not maintainable at his instance. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal below framed the following issues on 21.04.2011.:- “1. Whether Sh. Bhagat Ram died in an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, what amount and rate of interest, the petitioner is entitled for compensation? OPP 3. Whether respondent No.1 is held liable to make the payment of compensation as indemnifier? OPP. 4. Whether the petition is not maintainable?OPR-1 5. Whether the vehicle in question was driven in breach of terms and conditions of policy? OPR-1 6. Relief.” 6. The parties led their evidence and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the claim petition was allowed and the petitioner was granted compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest and respondents No.1 and 2 were held liable jointly and severally to pay the compensation to the petitioner. 7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant/petitioner preferred the instant appeal against the impugned award dated 23.07.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal below, with a prayer to enhance the amount of compensation. 8. 7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant/petitioner preferred the instant appeal against the impugned award dated 23.07.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal below, with a prayer to enhance the amount of compensation. 8. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant/petitioner has contended that the learned Tribunal below had not granted proper and adequate compensation to the petitioner as he was residing with the deceased and was dependent upon him for his day-to-day livelihood. He further contended that the learned Tribunal below had erred gravely by not taking into account the income of the deceased, age of the deceased and the dependency of the petitioner on the deceased , as such, the impugned award is required to be enhanced to Rs.11,00,000/- alongwith the interest. 9. Conversely, learned counsel representing respondents No.1 & 2 have supported the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal. 10. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and also carefully examined the entire record. 11. The first question, which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the petitioner, who was the nephew of the deceased, was entitled to file a claim petition on account of the death of the deceased who was his uncle. In Manjuri Bera (Smt) Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another, (2007) 10 SCC 643 , the married daughter, who was not dependent upon her deceased father, filed a claim petition and the question involved was whether she was entitled to maintain the said petition. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex court that a claim petition can be filed by a legal representative of the deceased, who in the normal circumstances is entitled to represent his estate. It has further been held that 'statutory compensation' payable under Section 140 (2) of the Act, becomes the estate of inheritable. In these circumstances it was held that the daughter, who was entitled to inherit the estate of her father, was also entitled to maintain claim petition and the compensation cannot be less than what has been prescribed in section 140 (2) of the Act. In these circumstances it was held that the daughter, who was entitled to inherit the estate of her father, was also entitled to maintain claim petition and the compensation cannot be less than what has been prescribed in section 140 (2) of the Act. Relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment read as under:- “15.Judged in that background where a legal representative who is not dependent files an application for compensation, the quantum cannot be less than the liability referable to Section 140 of the Act. Therefore, even if there is no loss of dependency the claimant if he or she is a legal representative will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall be not less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There will be no order as to costs. We record our appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Shri Jayant Bhushan, the learned Amicus Curiae. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 20. In my opinion, "no fault liability", envisaged in Section 140 of the said Act, is distinguishable from the rule of "Strict Liability". In the former, the compensation amount is fixed. It is Rs. 50,000/- in cases of death [Section 140(2)]. It is a statutory liability. It is an amount which can be deducted from the final amount awarded by the Tribunal. Since, the amount is a fixed amount/crystallized amount, the same has to be considered as part of the estate of the deceased. In the present case, the deceased was an earning member. The statutory compensation could constitute part of his estate. His legal representative, namely, his daughter has inherited his estate. She was entitled to inherit his estate. In the circumstances, she was entitled to receive compensation under "No fault Liability" in terms of Section 140 of the said Act. That section is a Code by itself within the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.” 12. In Gujrat State Road Transportation Corporation versus Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another AIR 1987 S.C.1690, the real brothers of the deceased, were held entitled to file claim petition being his legal representatives. 13. In National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Birender and others , AIR 2020 SC 434 , a question came up for consideration before Hon'ble Supreme Court as to whether major sons of the deceased, who are married and gainfully employed, can claim compensation. 13. In National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Birender and others , AIR 2020 SC 434 , a question came up for consideration before Hon'ble Supreme Court as to whether major sons of the deceased, who are married and gainfully employed, can claim compensation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependent on the deceased and it further held that the claim cannot be limited towards conventional heads only. Paras 14 and 15 of the said judgment are as under:- “14. The legal representatives of the deceased could move application for compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section 166(1). The major married son who is also earning and not fully dependent on the deceased, would be still covered by the expression “legal representative” of the deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera (supra) had expounded that liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the concerned legal representative. Notably, the expression “legal representative” has not been defined in the Act. In Manjuri Bera (supra), the Court observed thus:- “9. In terms of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 166 of the Act in case of death, all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased become entitled to compensation and any such legal representative can file a claim petition. The proviso to said sub-section makes the position clear that where all the legal representatives had not joined, then application can be made on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased by impleading those legal representatives as respondents. Therefore, the High Court was justified in its view that the appellant could maintain a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Act. 10.…..The Tribunal has a duty to make an award, determine the amount of compensation which is just and proper and specify the person or persons to whom such compensation would be paid. The latter part relates to the entitlement of compensation by a person who claims for the same. 10.…..The Tribunal has a duty to make an award, determine the amount of compensation which is just and proper and specify the person or persons to whom such compensation would be paid. The latter part relates to the entitlement of compensation by a person who claims for the same. 11.According to Section 2(11) CPC, “legal representative” means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who inter- meddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character,the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. Almost in similar terms is the definition of legal representative under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 i.e. under Section 2(1)(g). 12. As observed by this Court in Custodian of Branches of BANCO National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique [1989 Supp (2) SCC 275 the definition contained in Section 2(11) CPC is inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is not confined to legal heirs only. Instead it stipulates that a person who may or may not be legal heir competent to inherit the property of the deceased can represent the estate of the deceased person. It includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate even without title either as executors or administrators in possession of the estate of the deceased. All such persons would be covered by the expression “legal representative”. As observed in Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai (1987)3 SCC 234 a legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child.” In paragraph 15 of the said decision, while adverting to the provisions of Section 140 of the Act, the Court observed that even if there is no loss of dependency, the claimant, if he was a legal representative, will be entitled to compensation. In the concurring judgment of Justice S.H. Kapadia, as His Lordship then was, it is observed that there is distinction between “right to apply for compensation” and “entitlement to compensation”. The compensation constitutes part of the estate of the deceased. As a result, the legal representative of the deceased would inherit the estate. In the concurring judgment of Justice S.H. Kapadia, as His Lordship then was, it is observed that there is distinction between “right to apply for compensation” and “entitlement to compensation”. The compensation constitutes part of the estate of the deceased. As a result, the legal representative of the deceased would inherit the estate. Indeed, in that case, the Court was dealing with the case of a married daughter of the deceased and the efficacy of Section 140 of the Act. Nevertheless, the principle underlying the exposition in this decision would clearly come to the aid of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (claimants) even though they are major sons of the deceased and also earning. 15. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only… ” 14. Thus, the term 'legal representative' has broadly been interpreted in the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements of law whereby it has been held that any legal representative i.e. any person who in law represents the estate of a deceased including any person who inter-meddles with the estate of deceased is entitled to file claim petition. Since the deceased was not having any children/widow, therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that on his death, present petitioner, who was the legal representative of the deceased, was entitled to inherit his estate as such the claim petition at his instance, was maintainable. 15. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant next contended that the learned Tribunal below had not granted proper and adequate compensation to the petitioner as he was residing with the deceased and was dependent upon him for his day-to-day livelihood. He also contended that the learned Tribunal below had erred gravely by not taking into account the income of the deceased, age of the deceased and the dependency of the petitioner on the deceased , as such, the impugned award is required to be enhanced to Rs.11,00,000/- alongwith the interest. He also contended that the learned Tribunal below had erred gravely by not taking into account the income of the deceased, age of the deceased and the dependency of the petitioner on the deceased , as such, the impugned award is required to be enhanced to Rs.11,00,000/- alongwith the interest. However, this contention of the learned Senior Counsel is devoid of any force as the petitioner has failed to lead any cogent and satisfactory evidence on record that he was dependent upon the deceased. 16. Perusal of the record reveals that the deceased was issue- less and copy of Pariwar Register Ext.PW4/A shows that the occupation of the petitioner was recorded as agriculture and he was a married person. Except for the bald statement of the petitioner, there is no cogent and satisfactory evidence on record to suggest that he was totally dependent upon the income of the deceased. Though PW-3 Rajinder Singh and PW-6 Prem Dass deposed that the petitioner had no source of income and he was totally dependent upon the income of the deceased, however, no credence can be attached to their testimonies. As a matter of fact, the perusal of record reveals that the petitioner was an agriculturist and was a married person, therefore, it cannot be said that he had no income of his own and he was totally dependent upon the deceased for his own livelihood. His own parents were residing in that very locality where the petitioner was residing.The cross-examination of PW-6, Prem Dass goes to show that the petitioner had been residing with his father Sant Ram. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not earning any income from the agriculture. The learned Tribunal had rightly observed that it is difficult to infer that an adult healthy agriculturist, who was also married, was dependent on other for his livelihood. Therefore, it is difficult to place reliance upon the bald statement of the petitioner that he was totally dependent upon the income of the deceased for his day-to-day livelihood. The learned Tribunal below had rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner, being the legal representative of the deceased, is only entitled to the loss of his estate. In the present case the statutory compensation payable under Section 140(2) of MV Act became the estate of deceased, therefore, compensation payable to him cannot be more than Rs.50,000/-. 17. The learned Tribunal below had rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner, being the legal representative of the deceased, is only entitled to the loss of his estate. In the present case the statutory compensation payable under Section 140(2) of MV Act became the estate of deceased, therefore, compensation payable to him cannot be more than Rs.50,000/-. 17. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, no interference is required in the impugned award dated 23.07.2013, passed by the learned Tribunal below, as such, the appeal, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.