JUDGMENT : G. P. Mittal, J. 1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of Rs. 67,000/- awarded for the death of Shivani Tomar, the Appellant's sister who died in a motor accident which occurred on 30.12.2003. 2. It was established on record that the deceased was an MBA from Kurukshetra University and was working as an Apprentice in R.K. Constructions Company and getting a stipend of Rs. 7000/- per month. The Trial Court held that the Appellants were highly placed persons and were not financially dependent on their deceased's sister Shivani Tomar. The Claims Tribunal declined to grant any compensation on account of loss of dependency and awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- only towards loss of love and affection. A notional sum of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded towards loss to estate and Rs. 7,000/- towards funeral expenses. 3. It is not in dispute that the Appellants were not financially dependent on the deceased. In fact, the deceased's father who also died in this very accident was running a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s. Tomar Construction Company having a turnover of Rs. 1.5 Crores per annum. A compensation of Rs. 2,17,33,666/- was awarded in the connected case in favour of the Appellants for loss of financial dependency. There is no manner of doubt that the Appellants were not financially dependent on the deceased and were not entitled to any compensation on account of loss of dependency. 4. The case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Manjuri Bera (Smt.) v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 643 , wherein it was held that although even when there is no loss of dependency, a legal representative would be eligible to maintain a Petition under Sections 166, 140 or 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act but would not be entitled to any compensation towards loss of dependency. Para 15 of the report is extracted hereunder : “15. Judged in that background where a legal representative who is not dependant files an application for compensation, the quantum cannot be less than the liability referable to Section 140 of the Act. Therefore, even if there is no loss of dependency the claimant if he or she is a legal representative will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall be not less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act…” 5. Therefore, even if there is no loss of dependency the claimant if he or she is a legal representative will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall be not less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act…” 5. In the circumstances of the case, the award of compensation of Rs. 67,000/- cannot be faulted. 6. The Appeal is devoid of any merit; the same is accordingly dismissed.