K. SREEDHAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) SRI C. Shankar Reddy, learned Counsel is directed to take notice for respondent No. 2 in both these appeals. ( 2 ) ONE S. R. Kantharaj and his son Prasanna Kumar died in the motor vehicle accident. The wife and children of S. R. Kantharaj have filed MVC No. 205/03 and the same petitioners as mother, brother and sister have filed MVC No. 204/03 seeking compensation. ( 3 ) THE relevant provisions of Sections 1a and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act reads thus: 1a. Suit For Compensation To The Family Of A Person For Loss Occasioned To It By His death By Actional 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 ensured) 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 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. "2. Not More Than One Suit To Be Brought.- Provided always that no more than one action or suit shall be brought for; and in respect of the same subject-matter of complaint. "2. Not More Than One Suit To Be Brought.- Provided always that no more than one action or suit shall be brought for; and in respect of the same subject-matter of complaint. Claim For Loss To The Estate May Be Added.- Provided that, in any such action or suit, the executor, administrator or representative of the deceased may insert a claim for and recover any pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased occasioned by such wrongful act, neglect or default, which sum, when recovered, shall be deemed part of the assets of the estate of the deceased. The relevant provisions of Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 reads thus: application For Compensation. (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165, may be made ( a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representative of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:. . . . ( 4 ) THE aforesaid provision of Section 1a of the Fatal Accidents Act discloses that the named dependants can seek compensation in respect of general and special damages, whereas the legal representatives other than the named dependants under Section 1a can seek compensation only for loss of estate under Section 2 and that they are not entitled to seek general damages. Similarly, when the named dependants seek compensation as legal representatives under Section 166 of the M. V. Act, they are entitled to seek both general and special damages including loss of dependency. If the legal representatives seeking compensation under Section 166 of M. V. Act, are not the named dependants under Section 1 (A) of the Fatal Accidents Act, they would be entitled to seek compensation for loss of estate. When the named dependents under Section 1a are seeking compensation as the Legal representatives, the other category of dependants are not entitled to seek compensation under Section 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act simultaneously and are entitled to claim compensation only when there are no named dependents under Section 1a of the Fatal Accidents Act. When the named dependents under Section 1a are seeking compensation as the Legal representatives, the other category of dependants are not entitled to seek compensation under Section 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act simultaneously and are entitled to claim compensation only when there are no named dependents under Section 1a of the Fatal Accidents Act. ( 5 ) THE word 'legal representatives' under Section 166 of the M. V. Act and under Section 2 of the fatal Accidents Act, would mean only the legal heirs under Personal Law entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased and does not include other relatives who are not entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased under Personal Law. The mother of the deceased Prasanna Kumar being the named dependent under Section 1a of Fatal Accident Act is alone entitled to seek compensation and the brother and sister have no right to seek compensation. ( 6 ) MVC 204/02 is filed for the death of Prasanna Kumar. The deceased Prasanna Kumar was a driver by profession and his income is to be assessed at Rs. 3,000/- per month. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50%. e. , Rs. 1,500/- to be defrayed towards personal expenses and the total loss of dependency would be Rs. 2,34,000/- (Rs. 1,500 x 12 x 13 multiplier ). The 1st petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of expectancy and Rs. 3,000/- towards funeral expenses. ( 7 ) THIS Court, in the case reported in ILR 2000 4416 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gulam Khader), has held that in case of death of a bachelor, the compensation for loss of estate will not be conventional nominal amount, but a larger amount. Hence, 100% of the income earmarked for personal expenses shall be taken as savings and the total loss of estate would be rs. 2,34,000/ -. In all, the petitioners are entitled to a just compensation of Rs. 2,47,000/- as against Rs. 1,71,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. ( 8 ) MVC No. 205/02 is filed for the death of S. R. Kantharaj who was working as Police constable in D. A. R. He was drawing monthly gross salary of Rs. 7,205/-and net salary of Rs. 6,600/ -. As per multiple unit system, Rs. 1,650/- to be defrayed towards personal expenses and the total loss of dependency would be Rs. 5,94,000/- (R4s. 7,205/-and net salary of Rs. 6,600/ -. As per multiple unit system, Rs. 1,650/- to be defrayed towards personal expenses and the total loss of dependency would be Rs. 5,94,000/- (R4s. 4,950 x 12 x 10 multiplier ). The deceased, after attaining 58 years, would have retired and got a pension of Rs. 3,000/ -. After retirement, if Rs. 750/- is to be defrayed towards personal expenses, the total loss of dependency subsequent to retirement would be Rs. 54,000/- (Rs. 2,250 X 12 X 12 ). Therefore, the total loss of dependency would be Rs. 6,48,000/ -. The 1st petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/towards loss of consortium and all the petitioners together are entitled to Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of expectancy and Rs. 3,000/- towards funeral expenses. In all, the appellants-petitioners are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 6,71,000/- with interest at 6% p. a. from the date of petition till payment as against Rs. 6,42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeals are allowed as indicated above.