JUDGMENT : Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. The three appellants are aggrieved by an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Paschim Medinipur dated October 5, 2005 rejecting their claim for compensation under s.140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. The appellants filed an application under s.166 claiming fault liability compensation. Then they filed an application claiming compensation under s.140. Their case was this. The victim was their sister-in-law. The accident happened on July 29, 2000. The offending vehicle (lorry) driven rashly and negligently hit the ambassador car in which the victim, her husband and her only minor daughter were travelling. It killed all the three. 3. The insurance company contested the s.140 claim by filing a written objection. The claims tribunal dismissed the s.140 claim saying as follows:- "Therefore, the attempt of the petitioners only taking advantage of their relationship with the deceased and having no scintilla of a proof of their dependency on such housewife of that deceased brother, is required to be condemned, and they should not be allowed any amount of such public money under the caption of such proposed statutory compensation." 4. Mr. Banik appearing for the appellants and saying that he has received instructions to say that the s.166 application claiming fault liability compensation is pending before the claims tribunal, has submitted that by rejecting the s.140 claim citing absence of the appellants' dependency on the victim the claims tribunal committed an error of law. 5. Relying on Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & Anr., AIR 1987 (2) SC 1690, Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., AIR 2007 SC 1474 , and Hafizun Begum v. Md. Ikram Heque & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 2680 , he has submitted that a s.140 claim cannot be dismissed by a claims tribunal citing absence of the claimant's dependency on the victim. 6. Mr. Pal appearing for the insurance company and also relying on Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has submitted that the expression "legal representative" has been explained by the Supreme Court to include a person on whom the estate of the deceased devolves. He has submitted that dependency was a relevant question. According to him, the claims tribunal was right in dismissing the s.140 claim. 7. In Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation a brother of the victim filed the application for compensation. He has submitted that dependency was a relevant question. According to him, the claims tribunal was right in dismissing the s.140 claim. 7. In Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation a brother of the victim filed the application for compensation. The expression "legal representative" was closely examined by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. It was held that the brother of the victim who was killed in a motor accident was entitled to maintain the application for compensation, if he was a legal representative of the victim. 8. Manjuri Bera was a claim case by a married daughter of a victim of a motor vehicle accident. The application was filed under s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming fault liability compensation. This court held that the s.166 application by the victim's married daughter, who was not a dependant of the victim, was not maintainable. The Supreme Court allowed the daughter's appeal. 9. In Manjuri Bera the Supreme Court has held that what is necessary for a right to apply for compensation is the right to entitlement; that the s.140 liability does not cease even if there is absence of the claimant's dependency on the victim; and that even if there is no loss of dependency of the claimant, if he is a legal representative of the victim, he is entitled to compensation that cannot be less than the no fault liability amount payable under s.140. 10. In Hafizun Begum the question was whether brothers of the victim killed in a motor accident and not dependants of the victim would get any share of the compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The High Court dismissed the brothers' appeal citing absence of their dependency on the deceased victim. The Supreme Court referred to Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and reiterated that the s.140 liability could not cease even if dependency was absent. 11. It is, therefore, evident that Manjuri Bera is a complete answer to the issue involved in this appeal. As noted-hereinbefore, in that case the Supreme Court clearly held that the s.140 liability does not cease even if there is absence of the claimant's dependency on the deceased victim. This means that for determining a s.140 claim, the claims tribunal is not to record a finding of fact concerning the claimant's dependency on the deceased victim. 12. As noted-hereinbefore, in that case the Supreme Court clearly held that the s.140 liability does not cease even if there is absence of the claimant's dependency on the deceased victim. This means that for determining a s.140 claim, the claims tribunal is not to record a finding of fact concerning the claimant's dependency on the deceased victim. 12. In this case, the three brothers-in-law of the deceased victim filed the application for fault liability compensation and at once claimed compensation under s.140. They established that their sister-in-law, her husband (their brother) and the only minor daughter of their sister-in-law and their brother, all the three were killed in the same accident. 13. That the appellants were the legal representatives of the deceased victim is an evident fact. According to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 they are also the surviving heirs of the lady whose estate on her death devolved on them. We are, therefore, of the view that the claims tribunal committed an error by dismissing their s.140 claim. They are entitled to Rs. 50,000 compensation under s.140. 14. For these reasons, we set aside the impugned award, allow the appeal and order as follows. The insurance company shall pay the appellants Rs. 50,000 with 8% p.a. interest from the date of filing of the s.166 application till the date of payment within four weeks from the date this order is served. No costs. Certified xerox.