K. SREEDHAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) BOTH the appeals arise out of the same accident. ( 2 ) M. V. C. No. 723 of 1999 is filed by the mother and son of the deceased one hanumanthappa Adivappa Vajramatti. ( 3 ) M. V. C. No. 802 of 1999 is filed by wife and two daughters of the deceased hanumanthappa Adivappa Vajramatti. Both the cases pertain to death of same person and same cause of action. ( 4 ) THE mother and son of deceased are petitioners in M. V. C. No. 723 of 1999. It is their case that petitioner No. 1 in M. V. C. No. 802 of 1999 deserted the deceased hanumanthappa Adivappa Vajramatti, converted to Islam and got married to one mohammed Gouse. Out of the said wedlock, the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are born. Therefore, the petitioners in M. V. C. No. 802 of 1999 are not the legal heirs entitled to compensation. ( 5 ) THE petitioners in M. V. C. No. 723 of 1999 have produced ration card, Exh. P8. The oral and documentary evidence substantiate their contention to disable the petitioners in M. V. C. No. 802 of 1999 to seek compensation. ( 6 ) PER contra, the counsel for the petitioners in M. V. C. No. 802 of 1999 contend that there is no legal divorce. Mere conversion to Islam is not a ground to deny compensation. ( 7 ) THE provisions of section 1-A of the fatal Accidents Act reads thus: "1-A. Suit for compensation to the family of a person for loss occasioned to it by his death by actionable wrong.-Whenever the death of a person shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect, or default, and the act, neglect or default is such as would (if death had not ensued)have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the party who would have been liable if death had not ensued, shall be liable to an action or suit for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured, and although the death shall have been caused under such circumstances as amount in law to felony or other crime. Every such action or suit shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent and child, if any, of the person whose death shall have been so caused, and shall be brought by and in the name of the executor, administrator or representative of the person deceased; and in every such action, the court may give such damages as it may think proportioned to the loss resulting from such death to the parties respectively, for whom and for whose benefit such action shall be brought, and the amount so recovered, after deducting all costs and expenses, including the costs not recovered from the defendant, shall be divided amongst the before- mentioned parties, or any of them, in such shares as the court by its judgment or decree shall direct. " ( 8 ) THE provisions of section 168 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act reads thus: "168. Award of the Claims Tribunal.- (1) On receipt of an application for compensation made under section 166, the claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of section 162 may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be: ( 9 ) THE provisions of law above noted makes it abundantly clear that apportionment and disbursement of compensation is within the jurisdiction of the court and not governed by personal law of succession of the parties. ( 10 ) THE facts clearly disclose the conversion of petitioner No. 1 in M. V. C. No. 802 of 1999 to Islam and that the other petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are born out of the wedlock with Mohammed Gouse. The fact that the petitioner No. 1 was not divorced and she continues to be the wife, may be technically a sound contention. 2 and 3 are born out of the wedlock with Mohammed Gouse. The fact that the petitioner No. 1 was not divorced and she continues to be the wife, may be technically a sound contention. Merely because, petitioner No. 1 in M. V. C. No. 802 of 1999 is the legal heir, it does not conffer any legal right by itself to seek share in the compensation. ( 11 ) IN the totality of the facts and circumstances, the denial of compensation to the petitioners in M. V. C. No. 802 of 1999 is sound and proper. Therefore, both the appeals are dismissed. Appeals dismissed.