JUDGMENT: M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the tribunal") in MACP No. 262/2002 by which the learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,80,821/- to the original claimants towards compensation for the death of the deceased-Vimlaben, original opponent No. 3-National Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred the present Appeal. 2. At the outset it is required to be noted that the accident and the deceased-Vimlaben died in a vehicular accident is not disputed. The only question for the consideration of this Court is whether the original Claim Petition at the instance of the original claimants for getting compensation for the death of the deceased-Vimlaben was maintainable and/or if maintainable, what amount original claimants were entitled to? 2.1 The deceased was a Doctor of Government Hospital and was drawing pension of Rs. 7200/- per month. Original claimant No. 1 was the brother of the deceased and original claimant No. 2 was the nephew of the deceased and son of original claimant No. 1, who were residing and staying separately. By the impugned judgment and award the learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,80,821/- to the original claimants towards compensation for the death of the deceased under the head of; "Rs.2,80,821 Loss of dependency" Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award the appellant herein-Insurance Company has preferred the present Appeal. 3. Shri D.B. Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in passing the impugned judgment and award awarding compensation to the original claimants for the death of the deceased. It is further submitted by Shri Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the learned tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 2,80,821/- towards loss of dependency to the original claimants, who were not staying with the deceased and were not dependent upon the income of the deceased and/or dependent upon the deceased. It is further submitted by Shri Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the learned tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 2,80,821/- towards loss of dependency to the original claimants, who were not staying with the deceased and were not dependent upon the income of the deceased and/or dependent upon the deceased. It is further submitted by Shri Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that as such the original claimants are practicing lawyers, one aged about 74 years and another aged 36 years and both were not staying with the deceased and was staying separately, and therefore, as both the original claimants were not dependent upon the income of the deceased and/or were not dependent upon the deceased in any manner, the learned tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 2,80,821 towards loss of dependency to the original claimants. 3.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that as such as none of the original claimants were dependent upon the deceased and/or her income and were not staying with the deceased, and therefore, the learned tribunal ought to have dismissed the Claim Petition by observing that as they were not dependent the Claim Petition was liable to be rejected and they were not entitled to any amount of compensation. 3.2 In support of his above submissions, Shri Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company has heavily relied upon the following decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court:-- "(1) Sarla Verma (Smt) and Ors. 3.2 In support of his above submissions, Shri Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company has heavily relied upon the following decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court:-- "(1) Sarla Verma (Smt) and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in: (2009) 6 SCC 121 ; (2) Mahendrakumar Manilal Patel & Anr v. Ramjibhai Dalsibhai Chaudhary & Ors reported in: 2006 (1) GLR 637 ; (3) Unreported decision of this Court in the case of Economic Transport Organization Versus Kena Pankaj Patel and others, rendered in First Appeal No. 5182 of 1995 with First Appeal No. 6462 of 1995 (para 3.1); (4) Unreported decision of this Court in the case of Dilipbhai Guljibhai Gamit Versus Mahemmedbhai A. Bardoliya and another, rendered in First Appeal No. 6559 of 1999 with First Appeal No. 6560 of 1999." 3.3 In the alternative, it is submitted by Shri Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company that even if it is held that being the legal heirs and representatives, the Claim Petition at the instance of the original claimants was maintainable, in that case also the original claimants shall not be entitled to any amount under the head of loss of dependency, as the original claimants were not staying with the deceased and were not dependent upon her, and therefore, they are not entitled to any amount towards loss of dependency. 3.4 In the alternative, it is further submitted by Shri Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that only that person is entitled to loss of dependency who is dependent upon the victim/deceased who died in the accident and suffered loss of dependency on the death of a person on whom he/she was dependent. It is submitted that in such a situation and case, such a claimant would be entitled to only loss of estate and/or other amount towards medical expenses etc. only. Making the above submissions it is requested to allow the present Appeal, 4. The present Appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Mehul Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants. only. Making the above submissions it is requested to allow the present Appeal, 4. The present Appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Mehul Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants. 4.1 It is further submitted by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants that even in the case of Manjuri Bera (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not only held that a legal representative who is not dependent will be entitled to the compensation, quantum of which shall not be less than the liability flowing from section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is submitted that therefore, in the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not only held that the Claim Petition by legal representative who is not dependent would be maintainable but even such a legal representative - claimant shall also be entitled to the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. 4.2 It is submitted by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants that in the case of Sarana Das Versus Bhutnath Gorivi, reported in 2010 ACJ 401 (Calcutta), Calcutta High Court, after considering the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held that heirs and legal representatives of the victim can maintain an application under section 166 of the Act irrespective of the fact whether they are dependent upon the victim or not. 4.3 It is further submitted by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants that even in the case of Meghji Khimji Vira (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has held that the claim application by brother and nephew of the deceased who were legal representatives would be maintainable. It is submitted that after holding so, the Division Bench has awarded compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act to the brother and nephew of the deceased. 4.4 It is further submitted by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Meghji Khimji Vira (supra), has been subsequently considered and approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and others (supra). 4.4 It is further submitted by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Meghji Khimji Vira (supra), has been subsequently considered and approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and others (supra). It is submitted that in the case of Raman Prabhatbhai and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the decision of this Court in the case of Meghji Khimji Vira (supra), has observed and held that the brother of a person, who died in a motor vehicle accident, is entitled to maintain a petition under section 110 of the Act if he is a legal representative of the deceased. 4.5 It is further submitted by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants that even Madras High Court in the case of Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Sumathi and others, reported in: 2012 AAC 2965, after considering various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts on the point/issue has held that the legal representatives ordinarily includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate of the deceased person or persons on whom estate devolves on the death of an individual and therefore, right of claim for compensation of any or all legal representatives under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is a legal right. It is further submitted by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants that in the aforesaid decision, it is further observed and held that by the Madras High Court that there could be still a case where there is contribution of a portion of the income of the deceased to a legal representative, who had preferred a claim and he/she would not be wholly dependent on the income of the deceased. It is submitted that, it is further observed at a limited loss of contribution from the deceased would give rise to claim a compensation by him under section 166 of the Act, though he might not be wholly dependent as defined in section 2(1)(d) of the Workmen Compensation Act. It is submitted that, it is further observed at a limited loss of contribution from the deceased would give rise to claim a compensation by him under section 166 of the Act, though he might not be wholly dependent as defined in section 2(1)(d) of the Workmen Compensation Act. It is further submitted in the aforesaid decision, it is further observed and held by the Madras High Court that just because a brother or sister is married, right to represent the estate of the deceased is not taken away and therefore, Claim Petition by such legal representative who may not be dependent would still be maintainable for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. 4.6 It is further submitted by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants that even as per section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, any legal heir and representative of the victim of the accident would be entitled to file a Claim Petition. 4.7 It is, therefore, submitted that to hold that any heir and legal representative of the victim not dependent upon the victim of the accident is not entitled to file Claim Petition would tantamount to deny right to claim compensation under section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further submitted that therefore, the learned tribunal has rightly awarded compensation to the original claimant by holing that the Claim Petition at the instance of the original claimants for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is maintainable. 4.8 Now, so far as the reliance placed upon unreported decision of this Court in the case of Gujarat Transport Organization passed in First Appeal No. 5182 of 1995 is concerned, it is submitted that on facts, the said decision shall not be applicable and/or of any assistance to the appellant. By making above submissions and relying upon above decisions, it is requested to dismiss the Appeal referred by the Insurance Company. 5. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. At the outset it is required to be noted that now the question posed for the consideration of this Court in the present Appeal is not res integra in view of the decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 2188/2002 and other allied Appeals. 5. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. At the outset it is required to be noted that now the question posed for the consideration of this Court in the present Appeal is not res integra in view of the decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 2188/2002 and other allied Appeals. In the aforesaid decision it is specifically held by this Court that though any heir and legal representative/original claimant is not dependent, at the instance of the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased, the Claim Petition would be maintainable. However, such heirs and legal representatives who as such are not dependent upon the income of the deceased and/or dependent upon the deceased are not entitled to the loss of dependency, as they were not dependent upon the income of the deceased and therefore there was no question of loss of dependency to them and they shall be entitled to only loss of estate/loss to the estate etc.. 5.1 In the present case by the impugned judgment and award as such the learned tribunal has awarded only loss of dependency to the original claimants. From the evidence on record it has come on record that the original claimants were practicing lawyers and as such were neither residing with the deceased nor were dependent upon the income of the deceased and as such were not dependent upon the deceased as all of them were residing separately. Both the original claimants are advocates and the deceased who at the time of the accident was aged 75 years was a retired Doctor getting pension and was unmarried. It has come on record that both the original claimants were practicing lawyers at Jamnagar and the deceased was serving in Government Hospital at Khambalia and she retired from there. 5.2 From the deposition of the original claimants nothing is forthcoming that they were dependent upon the income of the deceased and/or they were dependent upon the deceased. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly when the original claimants were not dependent upon the deceased and/or her income, there is no question of any loss of dependency to them as awarded by the learned tribunal. Under the circumstances, as held by this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly when the original claimants were not dependent upon the deceased and/or her income, there is no question of any loss of dependency to them as awarded by the learned tribunal. Under the circumstances, as held by this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Diptiben Ureshbhai Vora & Ors in First Appeal No. 2188/2002 and allied Appeals the original claimants shall not be entitled to any amount towards loss of dependency. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated in the judgment and order passed in First Appeal No. 2188/2002, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal in awarding Rs. 2,80,821/- to the original claimants towards loss of dependency cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present Appeal succeeds and the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal in MACP No. 262/2002 to the original claimants towards loss of dependency to them on the death of the deceased is hereby quashed and set aside. It goes without saying that if any amount is deposited by the appellant pursuant to the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal, which is now set aside, the appellant-Insurance Company shall be entitled to get back the same either from the original claimants or from the fixed deposits, if any, lying with the learned tribunal with accrued interest thereon. With this, the present Appeal is partly allowed. No costs. In view of the order passed in First Appeal, Cross Objection filed by the original claimant deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.