JUDGMENT Hrishikesh Roy, J. 1. Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. M.D. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. By this appeal the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 30.5.2005 in MAC Case No. 139 of 2001 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (herein after referred to as MACT), Darrang, Mangaldoi, whereby the appellant/ wife has been held entitled to only 1/4th share of the amount awarded due to the accidental death of the appellant's husband Md. Nurool Hoque (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) on 11.3.1997 in a road accident. The appellant also challenges the direction given by the impugned order for awarding the remaining 3/4th share of the awarded amount in favour of brothers (respondents) of the deceased. 3. Following the accidental death of the deceased, who was working as Typist, the appellant/wife filed a claim petition before the MACT, Darrang and by the judgment and order dated 13.6.2003, a sum of Rs. 6,37,900/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition was awarded to the wife. 4. Long after the award in favour of the appellant/wife, the four brothers of the deceased filed petition claiming a share in the awarded amount. In pursuant to the application filed by the brother-in-laws of the appellant, the MACT reviewed its earlier judgment whereby the claim of the appellant wife was allowed exclusively in her favour and by the impugned order dated 30-5-2005 declared that the appellant being the issueless widow, will get only 1/4th share of the awarded amount as per Mohammadan Law and the remaining 3/4th share would be received by the four brothers of the deceased. 5. It is not in dispute that the respondents No. 2, 3, 4 and 5, who are brothers of the deceased, were living separately with their respective families and have their own source of earning as Govt. servants and cultivators and were not dependant on the deceased. 6. This Court by order dated 27-6-2005 took the view that the rights of the claimants are to be adjudicated under the Mohammadan Law which confines the right of the issueless widow to only 1/4th share of the property of her husband. Accordingly the brothers of the deceased are entitled to the remaining share of the property of the deceased. 6. This Court by order dated 27-6-2005 took the view that the rights of the claimants are to be adjudicated under the Mohammadan Law which confines the right of the issueless widow to only 1/4th share of the property of her husband. Accordingly the brothers of the deceased are entitled to the remaining share of the property of the deceased. The contention advanced on behalf of the wife/appellant that as the brothers of the deceased were not dependent on him and were, therefore, not entitled to claim a share of the awarded amount, was rejected and accordingly the present MAC appeal was dismissed by this Court on 27.6.2005. 7. The appellant challenged the rejection of her contention by filing a special leave petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court contending that her brother-in-laws, who are not dependent on her deceased husband, are not entitled to claim any share of compensation awarded by the MACT following the accidental death of her husband. 8. The Supreme Court while disposing of Civil Appeal No. 3216 of 2007 in their judgment dated 24-7-2007 (reported in AIR 2007 SC 2680 ) referred to the provisions of Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the M.V. Act) and recorded that in case of death, all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased become entitled to compensation and any such legal representatives can file a claim petition. 9. The Supreme Court specifically referred to its earlier decision in Manjuri Bera vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 2007 SC 1474 where the Supreme Court recorded that under Section 168 of the Act, the Tribunal has a duty to make an award, determine the amount of compensation and also specify the person or persons to whom such compensation would be paid. 10. The Supreme Court in Manjuri Bera (supra) also referred to Section 2(11) of the CPC where legal representative was declared to mean a person who, in law, represents the estate of the deceased persons and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in the representative character, the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. The reference in similar terms to the definition of legal representative under Section 2(1)(g) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 was also made by the Supreme Court in the said decision. 11. The Supreme Court also referred to its earlier decision in Custodian of Branches of BANCO National Ultramarino vs. Nalini Bai Naique reported in (1989) 2 SCR 810 , to declare that the definition of legal representative under Section 2(11) of CPC is inclusive in character and cannot be confined to only legal heirs. In fact, it was recorded by the Supreme Court that a person who may or may not be a legal heir and competent to inherit the property of the deceased, can represent the estate of the person. 12. In Manjuri Bera AIR 2007 SC 1474 (supra), the Supreme Court also referred to the decision in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai reported in (1987) 3 SCR 404 where it was held that 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. 13. By referring to the said two earlier decisions of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court held in Manjuri Bera (supra) that the liability under Section 140 of the Act does not cease because there is absence of dependency. The right to file a claim application has to be considered in the background of right to entitlement. Accordingly, the Supreme Court concluded that a legal representative who is not a dependent when he files an application for compensation; the quantum cannot be less than the liability referable to Section 140 of the Act. Accordingly, it was declared by the Supreme Court that even if there is no loss of dependency the claimant if he or she is a legal representative will be entitled to compensation. 14. It was observed by the Supreme Court while it considered this Court's previous order dated 27-6-2005 that various aspects on the right of the legal representatives who are not dependant on the deceased to stake a claim for compensation were not considered by this Court. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 24-7-2007 remitted the MAC appeal for a fresh decision in light of Manjuri Bera AIR 2007 SC 1474 (supra). Accordingly, the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 24-7-2007 remitted the MAC appeal for a fresh decision in light of Manjuri Bera AIR 2007 SC 1474 (supra). We have noted the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Manjuri Bera (supra) and also the judgment dated 24-7-2007, whereby the present appeal has been remitted back for a fresh adjudication. 15. We find that the MACT by the impugned order dated 30-5-2005 has held that the respondents Nos. 2 to 5, who are the brothers of the deceased, are entitled to 3/4th share of the awarded amount and the appellant/wife is entitled to 1/4th share of the award under the provisions of Mohammadan Law as she is a surviving widow without any issue. The said decision dated 30-5-2005 of the MACT is challenged in this appeal by contending that as the brothers of the deceased were not dependent on the deceased, they had no right to claim a share in the compensation awarded by the MACT. 16. But we find from the Apex Court decision in Manjuri Bera (supra) that the liability under Section140 of the Act does not cease because there is absence of dependency. Thus, even if there is no status of dependency, the brothers of the deceased being legal representatives are competent to represent the estate of the deceased. The MACT found that the appellant being an issueless widow is entitled under Mohammadan Law to only 1/4th share of the compensation awarded. As a natural corollary, the remaining 3/4th portion of the awarded amount would go to the legal representatives who are brothers of the deceased. 17. Having examined the declaration of law by the Supreme Court on the point in Manjuri Bera AIR 2007 SC 1474 (supra), we are of the view that the contention raised by the appellant that the brothers of the deceased not being dependent have no right to file a claim in share in the compensation awarded by the MACT cannot be accepted. 18. The respondent brothers of the deceased are legal representatives within the definition given under Section 2(11) of the CPC and also Section 2(1)(g) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966. 18. The respondent brothers of the deceased are legal representatives within the definition given under Section 2(11) of the CPC and also Section 2(1)(g) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966. Accordingly, in light of the law laid down in Manjuri Bera (supra), such legal representatives would be entitled to make a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Act and the MAC Tribunal was right to declare them as persons entitled to payment of compensation although they were not dependents of the deceased. 19. In view of above, we find no merit in the contention raised on behalf of the wife/ appellant and the appeal is dismissed following reconsideration in terms of the direction given by the Supreme Court on 24.7.2007 in Civil Appeal No. 3216 of 2007. No cost. Appeal dismissed.