JUDGMENT : TAYI RAMAPRASADA RAO, J. 1. The Appellant, the sister of the deceased who was unfortunately involved in a motor accident, filed a claim petition for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruchirappalli. The Tribunal, viz, the District Judge, after considering the merits of the case, found that a sum of Rs. 500/- would be the proper compensation to which the Appellant would be entitled to by reason of the involvement of her brother in the unfortunate accident. Having found that the Appellant would be entitled to such compensation, he dismissed the petition on the ground that the Petitioner being a sister had no locus standi under the Motor Vehicles Act to prefer a claim against the Respondents and, therefore, he dismissed, the claim petition. The learned Judge relied upon the decision in Ram Partap v. Punjab Roadways A.I.R. 1962 Punjab 540 and held that the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, being an enactment earlier than the Motor Vehicles Act has to prevail, and the sister, not being one of the persons named as a beneficiary or a legal representative under the provisions of the said Act did not have a legal capacity to maintain an application for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. His decision mainly rested on the ground that the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 would not telescope into that of the Motor Vehicles Act and that the provisions of the latter enactment are merely procedural in character and not substantive. As against his finding, the Appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. Mr. Parasaran, learned Counsel for the Appellant invited my attention to Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act which provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident may be made, where death has resulted from the accident, by the legal representative of the deceased. Rule 2 (c) of the Rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act, and under the provisions of the Madras Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals Rules, 1961 is as follows: Legal representative shall have the meaning assigned to it under Clause (11) of Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, the definition itself is clear that a legal representative of a deceased involved in a motor accident is per se entitled to file an application under Section 110-(A) and obtain the compensation to which the person is normally entitled to. Thus, the definition itself is clear that a legal representative of a deceased involved in a motor accident is per se entitled to file an application under Section 110-(A) and obtain the compensation to which the person is normally entitled to. The question, however, came up for decision in our High Court in Mohammed Habibullah v. Seethammal (1966) 2 Mad. L.J. 378: 1966 A.C.J. 349, Our learned Chief Justice dealing with the very question, and indeed a claim of a sister, observed that the Motor Vehicles Act is a self-contained code for the adjudication of claims and compensation on behalf of the victims of a motor accident and it is a complete machinery for the adjudication of such accidents. Their Lordships constituting the Division Bench in the above case, did also emphatically lay down that the Motor Vehicles Act had no nexus whatsoever with the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and it did not advance section or provision, of that Act into the sphere of operation of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the ultimate analysis they held that a married sister of a bachelor who died as a result of an accident by a motor vehicle could file a claim for compensation under the Act. While respectfully following the ratio of the decision laid down by their Lordships in the above case, I am of the view that the Appellant has to succeed. Even otherwise, the Motor Vehicles Act being a special enactment, it excludes the general, viz. the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. Special excludes the general is an accepted norm in judicial practice. Applying this principle as well, I am of the view that the definition of a legal representative as rendered in Rule 2(c) of the Rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act for the purpose of adjudication of claims arising out of motor accidents has to prevail. This definition attracts Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure which means and includes a person who, in law, represents the estate of a deceased person. It cannot be disputed that the sister of a person who has no other heir is a person who is normally entitled to succeed to the estate of such a deceased and, therefore, the sister is the legal representative. It cannot be disputed that the sister of a person who has no other heir is a person who is normally entitled to succeed to the estate of such a deceased and, therefore, the sister is the legal representative. The learned Judge is therefore wrong in considering the principles applicable to the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, and importing into the present case the considerations which might arise while considering a claim under the said Act. The sister is, therefore, entitled to the compensation of Rs. 500/-fixed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- as compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appeal is allowed with costs.