1. Puran Chand, his two sons-Sandeep Mehra & Lalit Mehra and Wife Poonam Mehra succumbed to the injuries received in Motor Accident while traveling in their Maruti Car No. DL-3C-N-8595 from Delhi to Jammu on 12.04.2000, when it was hit by Truck bearing registration No. PB-29-C-9521 near Ajit Palace Bhogpur Punjab. 2. Raj Kumar Mehra, the nephew of Puran Chand, filed Four Claim Petitions claiming compensation for the death of his uncle, cousins-Sandeep Mehra & Lalit Mehra and Aunt Poonam Mehra. 3. Although the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu found Malkiat Singh, the driver of Truck No. PB-29-C-9521 responsible for the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, as a result whereof Raj Kumar Mehra's relations died, yet compensation for their death was declined to him on the ground that he was not dependent on the deceased. 4. Aggrieved by the rejection of his Claim preferred in Four Claim Petitions, the appellant has filed these Appeals seeking setting aside of the Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu dated 08.08.2003. 5. As common question of law and facts arise in the Appeals, these were taken up for joint consideration. 6. Appearing for the appellant, his learned counsel Mr. Sharma argued that although the appellant was not dependent on the deceased, yet being a legal heir, he was entitled to compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. To support his submissions, he relied on Smt. Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported as AIR 2007 Supreme Court, 1474. Per contra, Mr. Kapahi appearing for the Oriental Insurance Company Limited submitted that having opted not to plead his entitlement to compensation being the legal heir of the deceased, the appellant was not entitled to compensation after his failure to prove his dependence on the deceased. He further submitted that the appellant's plea of being the legal heir of the deceased and his entitlement to compensation on that ground too may not be tenable because of the availability of other legal heirs of the deceased whose status was superior to that of the appellant, which disentitled him to claim compensation. 7. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 7. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is no longer res Integra that no fault liability envisaged by Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act was distinguishable from the rule of 'strict liability' and the compensation payable thereunder, being statutory, becomes the estate of the deceased, And person(s) entitled to inherit his estate become entitled thereto regardless of their dependence on the earnings of the deceased; But to become entitled to the estate, one has to be such an heir who was entitled under law to the estate of the deceased. Smt. Manjuri Bera's case referred to by the appellant's learned counsel does not support the appellant's plea. Although the appellant has not indicated in the Claim Petitions as to how was he entitled to compensation for the death of the deceased yet even if one were to proceed on the basis of what was stated by him while appearing before the Tribunal in support of the Claims, it is apparent that the appellant's father were five brothers namely Garib Dass, Gian Chand, Kaka Ram, Ami Chand and Puran Chand-de-ceased and out of the five brothers, three brothers namely Puran Chand, Gian Chand and Ami Chand have died. It is further indicated by the appellant in the Statement that Ami Chand had three daughters and Kaka Ram two sons and a daughter. 8. In view of the above factual position as admitted by the appellant, the two brothers of deceased Puran Chand being still alive and appellant's deceased uncle too having been survived by his legal heirs, the appellant cannot be held entitled to compensation in view of the provisions of the Succession Act in terms whereof the appellant's status is that of an heir inferior to the other superior surviving heirs of the deceased, who figure as Class II heirs in the Succession Act. The appellant is, therefore, not entitled to the estate of the deceased in presence of other heirs who have preferential right to the estate of the deceased. 9. The appellant's claim to compensation for the death of Puran Chand, his sons and wife, regardless of his having obtained Succession Certificate was, therefore, misconceived. Denial of compensation to him by the Tribunal cannot, therefore, be faulted. 10. For all what has been said above, there is no merit in these Appeals, which are, accordingly, dismissed.