JUDGMENT : Sibghat Ullah Khan, Satish Chandra, JJ. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimants for the enhancement of the compensation u/s 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and order dated 20.3.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. Unnao in Claim Petition No. 203 of 1996. Jagmohan v. Vijay Shanker Tiwari, where a total compensation of Rs. 50,000 was awarded against the insurance company alongwith 9% interest. The brief facts of the case are that in the night of 2.4.1995, at about 4.00 a.m., Smt. Kunwara wife of Sri Maiku Lal was traveling in a Bus No. U.S.Z. 1192. When the Bus reached Kunda Railway Station, it got overturned due to speed breaker which resulted injuries to the passengers and the death of deceased Smt. Kunwara. The claimant-appellants have filed the claim petition, where the Tribunal by its impugned order has awarded a total compensation off 50,000. Not being satisfied, the claimants-appellants have filed the present appeal. 2. With this background Sri Rajeev Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the Bus was going to Vindhyachal alongwith 45 to 50 passengers. When it reached near Kunda Railway Station, it got over turned due to speed breaker. He submits that against the insurance-company, the compensation off Rs. 50,000, which includes Rs. 5,000, funeral expenses etc., is meagre one. Lastly, he made a request that a suitable compensation may kindly be awarded. 3. On the other hand, Sri S.C. Gulati, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2-National Insurance Company submits that the claimants-appellants are major and were not depending on the deceased. So, they are not entitled for any compensation. For this purpose, he has relied on the ratio laid down in the case of Smt. Manjuri Bera Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Another, (2007) 10 SCC 643 , where a prayer was made that the married daughter may not be considered as a dependent of the deceased. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that: 13. There are several factors which have to be noted. The liability u/s 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. While assessing the quantum, the multiplier system is applied because of deprivation of dependency. In other words, multiplier is a measure. The liability u/s 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. While assessing the quantum, the multiplier system is applied because of deprivation of dependency. In other words, multiplier is a measure. There are three stages while assessing the question of entitlement. Firstly, the liability of the person who is liable and the person who is to indemnify the liability, if any. Next is the quantification and Section 166 is primarily in the nature of recovery proceedings. As noted above, liability in terms of Section 140 of the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency. 14. Section 165 of the Act also throws some light on the controversy. The explanation includes the liability under Sections 140 and 163A. 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. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. 4. Learned counsel admits that the present case is not u/s 140 of the Act. Lastly, he made a request to dismiss this appeal. 5. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the accident is undisputed, where the deceased died. At the time of accident, the driver of the Bus, Sri Iqbal Ahmad was holding a valid H.M.V. licence. On the date of accident, the Bus was insured by the respondent No. 2-insurance company and on the date of the accident, the policy was alive. The Bus was holding a valid permit and fitness certificate. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the insurance-company is liable to pay the compensation. 6. In the instant case, appellants-claimants are entitled to get the compensation being the legal representatives of the deceased. The Bus was holding a valid permit and fitness certificate. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the insurance-company is liable to pay the compensation. 6. In the instant case, appellants-claimants are entitled to get the compensation being the legal representatives of the deceased. Section 2(11), C.P.C. defines the legal representatives, which 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. Almost in similar terms is the definition of legal representative under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, i.e. u/s 2(1)(g). 7. In view of above, it is clear that claimant-appellants can claim the compensation. 8. During the course of hearing both the parties have agreed that the benefit of Laxmi Devi and Others Vs. Mohammad Tabbar and Another, (2008) 12 SCC 165 , cannot be given in the instant case as on the date of accident, the said judgment was not in the existence. Hence, the notional income for non-earning member will have to be taken, which at the relevant time was Rs. 15,000 per annum 1/3rd amount will have to be deducted for personal expenses. The deceased was not having any proof of age, but in the post-mortem report, her age was determined as 55 years. So, the multiplier of 11 is applicable in the instant case, as per the Second Schedule of the Section 163A of the Act. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 15,000 per annum-(minus) 1/3rd Rs. 5,000 = 10,000 x 11 comes to Rs. 1,10,000. So, the appellants-claimants are entitled to get the compensation of Rs. 1,10,000. In addition, Rs. 9,500 will have to be given for consortium, funeral expenses etc. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 1,19,500, alongwith simple interest @ 6% per annum. The amount already paid will be adjusted and remaining amount will have to be deposited by the respondents No. 2-National Insurance Company, within a period of three months with the concerning Tribunal. 9. The registry of this Court is also directed to transmit the amount, if any, to the concerning Tribunal, who is further directed to distribute the same, at the earliest, to the appellants-claimants in terms of the award. 10. 9. The registry of this Court is also directed to transmit the amount, if any, to the concerning Tribunal, who is further directed to distribute the same, at the earliest, to the appellants-claimants in terms of the award. 10. The impugned judgment and order is modified accordingly. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants-claimants is partly allowed.