JUDGMENT : Abhay M. Naik, J. This matter has come up before me as a third Judge for deciding the following point of law due to difference of opinion between the constituent Judges of Division Bench:- "What should be the ratio of apportionment of amount of compensation between the legal heirs of the deceased, whether under the law any straight-jacket formula can be adopted or whether the question of determination of ratio would depend upon the various other facts and circumstances of a particular case like; age, dependency, size of the family and the need?" 2. Relevant facts, in short, are that the husband of claimant No. I/appellant, namely, Mukesh Singh died at the age of 26 in an accident with tanker number DN09/9433. He received severe injuries and consequently died. Claimants, who were widow (Claimant No. 1), parents (Claimants No. 2 and 3) and brothers of the deceased (Claimants No. 4 and 5), submitted a joint claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Despite opposition, the Claims Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record passed the award to the tune of Rs. 5,52,000/- in favour of the claimants in equal proportion. 3. Claimant No. I/appellant being widow of the deceased submitted an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement as well as for disputing the ratio of apportionment fixed by the Claims Tribunal. According to her, she is entitled to at least 75% of the amount of compensation. Appeal came up for consideration before the Division Bench constituted by brothers Abhay Gohil, J. and S. Samvatsar, J. During hearing, learned counsel for the appellant did not choose to press the question of enhancement of compensation. Only objection raised was in respect of apportionment. 4. Brother Gohil, J. observed that widow was about 22 years of age and the mother was about 50 years of age. According to him, the deceased was residing with the parents and was also contributing for the household expenses of the family and was also looking after the parents. He was young and the parents have lot of expectations from young son to help them in time of need, particularly, in old age and to contribute for the family. Parents may also have debts. He was young and the parents have lot of expectations from young son to help them in time of need, particularly, in old age and to contribute for the family. Parents may also have debts. Therefore, brother Gohil, J. held that the apportionment of the amount of compensation in the ratio of 50: 50 would be just appropriate and proper between the widow and mother/father of the deceased. Brother S. Samvatsar, J. held that father is not a Class I heir and so long as widow and mother, who are Class I heirs are alive, father is not entitled to any compensation. The direction of disbursement of 50% amount to mother/father was found to be contrary to the provisions of Hindu Succession Act and, accordingly, as per S. Samvatsar, J. father was not found entitled to any compensation. He held that mother and the widow of the deceased alone are entitled to compensation. As regards the ratio of apportionment, he further observed that the widow and mother cannot be equated in the matter of disbursement because remaining life span of the mother is less than the remaining life span of the widow. Considering the multiplier applicable to the mother, he held that mother is not entitled to equal share and apportionment in the ratio of 60% and 40% would be proper to widow and mother respectively. 5. In view of the aforesaid difference of opinion, the question of law mentioned hereinabove has been referred to me as third Judge. 6. Smt. Meena Singhal and Shri Anand V. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the parties, argued at length in support of their respective plea. 7. At the outset, I may point out that though the question referred is only about ratio of apportionment, a difference of opinion is also reflected in respect of persons entitled to compensation. Brother Gohil, J. has apportioned the amount of compensation between widow and mother/father whereas brother Samvatsar, J. has made apportionment between widow and mother alone. (i) Sub-section (1) of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, enables a claimant to submit an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165. Such an application, in case where death has resulted from the accident, may be submitted by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. Such an application, in case where death has resulted from the accident, may be submitted by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:- Section 166. Application for compensation. - (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub­section (1) of section 165 may be made - (a) XX XX XX (b) XX XX XX (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. Thus, the legislature has not deliberately made merely the legal heirs of the deceased entitled to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Instead, legal representatives of the deceased have been made entitled to claim compensation under the Act. The term legal representative is not synonymous to legal heir. The term legal representative has not been defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 though it has been defined in section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure as follows:- "2. Definitions. - In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, - (1) XX XX XX (2) XX XX XX (3) XX XX XX (4) XX XX XX (5) XX XX XX (6) XX XX XX (7) XX XX XX (8) XX XX XX (9) XX XX XX (10) XX XX XX (11) "legal representative" means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles 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." The word "heir" is defined in clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as any person, male or female, who is entitled to succeed to the property of an intestate under the said Act. (ii) Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, empowers the Claims Tribunal to 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. Thus, looking to the scheme of the Act of 1988, it may be said that the claimant, who though, is not a legal heir but is a legal representative, may be held entitled to compensation by the Claims Tribunal in a set of particular/peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. I may quote here successfully the following paragraph from Supreme Court's decision in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn., Ahmedabad vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another, 1987 MPLJ (SC) 583 = 1987 ACJ 561 (SC), paragraph 14 of which is reproduced below:- "14. Before concluding we may add that although the Act was extensively modified after the receipt of the report of the Law Commission, Parliament did not choose to amend section 110-A of the Act by defining the expression 'legal representative' in relation to claims under Chapter VIII of the Act as the 'spouse, parent and children of the deceased' as recommended by the Law Commission. The Law Commission had observed in its 85th Report that it would be appropriate to assign to the expression 'legal representative' the same meaning as had been given to the expression 'representative' for the purposes of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and that would effectively carry out the purpose of social justice underlying Chapter VIII of the Act, to which the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 was the nearest approximation. This recommendation was made after referring to the divergent views expressed by the various High Courts on the meaning of the expression 'legal representative' in section 110-A of the Act. The fact that Parliament declined to take any action on the recommendation of the Law Commission of India suggests that Parliament intended that the expression 'legal representative' in section 110-A of the Act should be given a wider meaning and it should not be confined to the spouse, parent and children of the deceased." Thus, merely on account of being not a legal heir, a person applying under section 166 does not ipso facto stand excluded from, the description of claimant within the ambit of Motor Vehicles Act. In cases, when there is no proof on record about legal representation within the meaning of section 2(11), Civil Procedure Code, the Claims Tribunal may be guided for deciding entitlement of claimant's by provisions of the Hindu Succession Act by invoking the analogy of legal heir but the same cannot be treated as absolute in view of the language of section 166 of the Act of 1988 which enables a legal representative to make an application for compensation. Of course, in such cases, the legal representativeship of the deceased with reference to special facts and circumstances of the case requires to be proved. In cases, when no special facts and circumstances with respect to legal representation by non-legal heir are proved, the Claims Tribunal may be guided by the provisions of Hindu Succession Act and may accept the claim of the legal heir alone for compensation awarded under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Though in the judgment of the Division Bench, brother Gohil, J. observed that the apportionment of the amount of compensation in the ratio of 50:50 between the widow and mother/father of the deceased would be just, appropriate and proper, brother Samvatsar, J. while differing on the issue, clearly observed that during the lifetime of mother, father is not entitled to compensation. However, while formulating the point of law to be decided by this Court, only question with reference to apportionment alone is included. This being so, it has been referred that what should be the ratio of apportionment of amount of compensation between the legal heirs of the deceased. In view of this, I do not feel that further discussion on the issue of entitlement to amount of compensation under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 of legal representatives vis-a­vis legal heirs is required at the present juncture. 8. Smt. Meena Singhal, learned counsel for the appellant, cited following rulings to substantiate that the widow of the deceased would be entitled to more compensation by way of apportionment in comparison to mother of the deceased:- (a) In the case of D. Shanmukha Sundaramma vs. D. Suneetha and Others, (2009) I ACC 740 (SC), widow was 20 years of age. Out of the total amount of compensation of Rs. 4,22,438/-, mother has been awarded Rs. 1,25,000/- whereas the balance amount i.e. 2,97,438/- is awarded to the widow of the deceased. Out of the total amount of compensation of Rs. 4,22,438/-, mother has been awarded Rs. 1,25,000/- whereas the balance amount i.e. 2,97,438/- is awarded to the widow of the deceased. The ratio applied between the widow and the mother of the deceased is 70:30 (approx.). (b) In the case of Nalini and others vs. Mukhtyar Singh and others, 2008 ACJ 906 (M.P. High Court), widow was 21 years of age while mother of the deceased was 46 years of age. The amount of compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- was apportioned in the ratio of 80:20. In this case, father of the deceased was an industrialist and mother was not found financially dependent upon the deceased. Therefore, the apportionment was made in the ratio of 80:20. (c) In the case of Vimla vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma and others, 2008 ACJ 816 (M. P. High Court), the amount of compensation was apportioned in the ratio of 70:30 and the widow was held entitled to compensation despite remarriage because she was living with her husband at the time of accident and her in-laws and other members were residing separately. (d) In the case of Smt. Rambai vs. Santosh Kumar Pandeya and others, 2008(1) ACCD 247 (M.P. High Court), compensation of Rs. 3,80,0007-was apportioned in the ratio of 75% to the widow and 25% to the parents. (e) In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another vs. Sandhya Jain and others, 2000 ACJ 426 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh), widow was held entitled to Rs. 3,61,960/- whereas minor son and daughter of the deceased were held entitled to Rs. 3 lacs each towards compensation. Mother of the deceased was held entitled to Rs. 20,0007-towards compensation. (f) In the case of Govind Sao and another vs. Surjit Singh Mahal alias Bhola Babu and others, 2000 ACJ 489 (Patna High Court), widow alone was found entitled because parents were living separately from the deceased and had sufficient income to maintain themselves whereas the widow was solely dependent upon the income of the deceased. (g) In the case of Anju Behal and others vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, 1993 ACJ 87, out of compensation of Rs. 6,20,000/-, Rs. 5,95,000/- was awarded to the widow and daughters and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was awarded to the mother of the deceased on the ground that mother was not dependent on the deceased. (g) In the case of Anju Behal and others vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, 1993 ACJ 87, out of compensation of Rs. 6,20,000/-, Rs. 5,95,000/- was awarded to the widow and daughters and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was awarded to the mother of the deceased on the ground that mother was not dependent on the deceased. On perusal of the aforesaid rulings, it is clear that the ratio of apportionment in the case of widow and mother of the deceased has varied on higher side in favour of the widow looking to her age and other attending facts and circumstances. It has not been held in any of the cases in the ratio of 50:50. However, no specific formula or equation has been applied in any of the abovementioned cases. 9. Cases for claims arising out of the motor accidents often involve illiterate persons and members belonging to downtrodden classes. They may not be able to prove their cases with reference to other factors relevant for the purpose of apportionment. In such cases, certain criteria is required to be evolved. Of course, other factors like age of the claimants, their financial status7potential, degree of dependency, availability of other means with the claimants for survival etc. are to be taken into consideration while making apportionment. It is not always necessary that the Claims Tribunal may find proof about all such factors on record to make a proper apportionment. Question before this Court is that when there is no material on record fully or sufficiently to make proper apportionment what should be the criteria liable to be applied for just and proper apportionment. 10. In the considered view of this Court, one of such criteria may be that suppose a deceased, aged 30 years, with annual income of Rs. 48,000/- left behind him his widow 'A', aged 26 years and mother 'B', aged 56 years. Thus, there would be a dependency to the extent of 2/3rd i.e. Rs. 32,000/-. Had there been 'A' alone, she would have been entitled to Rs. 32,000 X 18 (Multiplier) = 5,76,000/-. Similarly, had there been 'B' alone, she would have been entitled to Rs. 32,000 X 8 (Multiplier) = 2,56,000/-. While apportioning the amount of compensation ratio of 5,76,000:2,56,000 i.e. 9:4 may be maintained which would be just and proper according to the schedule for compensation prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act. 32,000 X 18 (Multiplier) = 5,76,000/-. Similarly, had there been 'B' alone, she would have been entitled to Rs. 32,000 X 8 (Multiplier) = 2,56,000/-. While apportioning the amount of compensation ratio of 5,76,000:2,56,000 i.e. 9:4 may be maintained which would be just and proper according to the schedule for compensation prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act. No claimant in such a case may complain about lesser share in the amount of compensation. 11. My aforesaid view seems fortified by the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of Pampa Banik and others vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2010 ACJ 1199 . Paragraphs 19 and 20 of it are reproduced below for convenience: "19. The victim was aged 29 years and had businesses of jute and bakery and it appears that at a comparative young age, he well established himself in the business and was an Income-tax assessee and had shown his annual net income to be Rs. 1,20,000/-. It is expected that in course of time, he would flourish in his business and the income from the business would not remain static even after the lapse of 10 or 20 years. In such a situation, when we find that the victim at this young age used to earn Rs. 10,000/- a month, for the purpose of calculating the loss of dependency of the widow, we should double the income as after 30 years, when the victim would have become aged 59, the amount of income would not be the same and the value, of the money in the present economic background would definitely diminish and thus, we propose to treat his income to be Rs. 20,000/- per month after deduction of Income-tax which comes to Rs. 2,40,000/- annually. After deducting one-third of the said income towards his personal expenses, the amount of dependency will come to Rs. 1,60,000/- per annum. Having regard to the present days bank interest, which we treat as 10 per cent per annum for a longer period, the multiplier applicable should be 10 and the amount of compensation payable to the widow would be Rs. 16,00,000/- if she were the sole heir. But as she had Vi share in the estate left by the victim, the amount should come down to Rs. 8,00,000/- which should be the amount payable to the widow. 20. 16,00,000/- if she were the sole heir. But as she had Vi share in the estate left by the victim, the amount should come down to Rs. 8,00,000/- which should be the amount payable to the widow. 20. So far the mother is concerned, her dependency being for a shorter period, we propose to treat income of the victim to be Rs. 1,50,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd from that amount, the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 1,00,000/-. However, having regard to the age of the mother which was 45, we propose to apply the multiplier of 6 and the amount of compensation would come to Rs. 6,00,000/-. The mother, having ½ share in the estate left by the victim, the actual compensation payable should be Rs. 3,00,000/- for the mother. Therefore, the total amount of compensation would come to Rs. 8,00,000/- payable to the widow + Rs. 3,00,000/- payable to the mother = Rs. 11,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of filing the application till actual payment. It is needless to mention that the running of interest would stop on the amount already paid by the insurance company from the date of such payment." Kolkata High Court has worked out individual entitlement and has added them together while arriving at a total amount of compensation. 12. In the case in hand, the amount of compensation is not under challenge. It is less than the total entitlement of widow and mother worked out separately as per preceding paragraph No. 10. Therefore, in such cases, the ratio of apportionment may be worked out by maintaining the ratio of individual's entitlement arrived at separately in the aforesaid manner. In the present case, had there been widow alone as a claimant, she would have been entitled to Rs. 32,000 X 18 (Multiplier-deceased being 26 years aged) = 5,76,000/-. Similarly, had there been mother aged 50 years alone as a claimant, she would have been entitled to Rs. 32,000 X 13 (Multiplier in view of the mother's age) = 4,16,000/-. Hence, the proportion or ratio between these two figures in the present case may be 18:13. 13. It may further be seen that father of the deceased is aged 51 years. There is nothing on record to show that he is not able to look after himself. 32,000 X 13 (Multiplier in view of the mother's age) = 4,16,000/-. Hence, the proportion or ratio between these two figures in the present case may be 18:13. 13. It may further be seen that father of the deceased is aged 51 years. There is nothing on record to show that he is not able to look after himself. It is equally true that the mother is not found to be fully dependent on the deceased son. Considering the same, it is held that the apportionment made by brother Samvatsar, J. is near about in the ratio worked out by applying the abovementioned criteria/formula and is just and proper, in my considered opinion in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the point of law referred to this Court is answered in the following manner:- When there is no material available on record fully or sufficiently to make just and proper apportionment this Court is of the view that at least the ratio worked out in the manner provided in paragraph 10 above or near about it ought to be maintained while making apportionment of the amount of compensation amongst the persons found entitled thereto. In case of availability of proof about additional factors like age, degree of dependency, size of family, financial potential of individual claimant etc, the ratio may be varied depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Matter may further be placed before the regular Division Bench for delivery of judgment. Order accordingly.