JUDGMENT : 1. The Insurance Company has felt aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, which granted compensation to the claimant, who was the daughter of the deceased, who died in the vehicular accident on 26.6.1998. The deceased was 45 years old leaving behind her the claimant, who was the only legal representative as defined in Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The contention is that the claimant is a married daughter and not dependent on the deceased and, therefore, no compensation could have been awarded in M.A.C.P. No. 104 of 2002, vide order dated 26.5.2007. 3. Brief facts are that on the date of accident, i.e., 26.6.1998 at about 2:00 to 3:00 pm, when the deceased was coming back with her son-in-law, Om Prakash Chaurasia, a vehicle from the opposite direction bearing No. WB12A-1255, was driving rashly and negligently dashed her. The deceased succumbed to her injuries when she was taken to the hospital. The respondent No. 1 was summoned but despite summons being served, the opponent No. 1, namely Mangaldev Prasad, did not appear before the Tribunal and, therefore, the matter was conducted against him. In light of the judgment of the Apex Court in UPSRTC vs. Mamta, reported in AIR 1996 SC 948, all the issued raised in the appeal have to be decided and, therefore, the Tribunal framed all the four issued and held all of them against the owner and the Insurance Company. None appeared for the Insurance Company. The appellant examined as P.W.-1, namely, Seema Chaurasia and P.W.-2 was Sandeep Kumar Chaurasia. 4. It is submitted the married daughter is entitled for compensation only under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, i.e. only limited to Rs. 50,000/- as being not dependent. It is further pleaded that the multiplier was on the higher side. 5. Shri S.D. Ojha appearing for the respondent has relied on the judgment of this Court dated 9.11.2016, reported in F.A.F.O. No. 3174 of 2015 (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Irfan and 5 others) and submitted that in light of latest judgment of Apex Court as well as judgment of this Court, the ground that married daughter is not entitled, cannot be sustained. 6. In that view of the matter, the appeal requires to be decided. Ltd. vs. Irfan and 5 others) and submitted that in light of latest judgment of Apex Court as well as judgment of this Court, the ground that married daughter is not entitled, cannot be sustained. 6. In that view of the matter, the appeal requires to be decided. The grounds of appeal raised, more particularly, the first ground is regarding the claimant, who was a married daughter and was not dependant upon the deceased and, therefore, he was not entitled to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In the alternative reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UPSRTC VS. Trilok Chand and others, reported in 1996 (2) TAC 286 holding that the aspect of dependency is crucial for determining the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and the latest Supreme Court decision reported in 2007 (2) TAC431-Smt. Manjuri Bera vs. Oriental Insurance Co. and another. 7. The next ground, raised, is that the Tribunal erred in holding the Insurance Company liable and illegally admitted the photocopy of the driving licence without any further proof. 8. The third issue is regarding the compensation and the multiplier awarded by the Tribunal it has submitted that the deceased being 50 years of age multiplier of 13, could not have been granted and nothing more than Rs. 50,000/- should have been awarded by the Tribunal. 9. It would be necessary to advert to provisions of Sections 140, 160 and 168 of Act, 1988 as learned counsel has taken us through judgment in Manjuri Bera (Smt) Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 643 , to contend that nothing more than mentioned as fixed compensation under Section 140 of Act, 1988 was to be awarded to claimants. 10. Principles for grant of compensation under Section 166 are based on provision of Section 168 of Act, 1988 also. Tribunal has relied on decision of this Court in Mohd. Yunus and Adarsh Vs. Raies and others, 2015(2) TAC, 526 (Alld) and has held that the word 'dependent' is not found in the Act. Decision of Apex Court relied by learned counsel for claimants was confined to compensation under section 140 of Act, 1988 only and it was held that claimants was at least entitled to amount not less than Rs.50,000/- as compensation under Section 140 of Act, 1988. Decision of Manjuri Bera (Smt) Vs. Decision of Apex Court relied by learned counsel for claimants was confined to compensation under section 140 of Act, 1988 only and it was held that claimants was at least entitled to amount not less than Rs.50,000/- as compensation under Section 140 of Act, 1988. Decision of Manjuri Bera (Smt) Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of this case as Apex Court categorically held that principles for granting compensation under Section 140 and factors for grant under Section 166 of Act are quite different. 11. The first submission that the claimant was not deponent as she was a married daughter and the said ground is no longer available as this Court in The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ifran and 5 others has held that the compensation is based on the basis of a person being legal representative. Section 166 read with section 140 of Act, 1988 reads as under : "140. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault.- (1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section. (2) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under sub-section (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of 1[fifty thousand rupees] and the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of 2[twenty-five thousand rupees. (3) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (3) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (4) A claim for compensation under sub-section (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement. 3[(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) regarding death or bodily injury to any person, for which the owner of the vehicle is liable to give compensation for relief, he is also liable to pay compensation under any other law for the time being in force: Provided that the amount of such compensation to be given under any other law shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this section or under section 163A." Section 166 of Act, 1988, reads as follows : "166. Application for compensation.- (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made- (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be: (1) Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. (2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed: 12. Provided that where no claim for compensation under section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant. (3) [ * * * ] (4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act." 13. This answers the first issued raised by the Insurance Company against it. 14. Issue Nos. 1 and 4 in Manjuri Bera (Smt) vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2207) 10 SCC 643, Supreme Court did not held that the amount would be only Rs. 50,000/-, the Apex Court has held that amount would not be less than Rs. 50,000/- at least. 15. Hence, I am unable to accept the submission of counsel for the Insurance Company as far as legal representative is concerned, as compensation is coupled with this issue, the same is dealt with the same. The income of the deceased as a house-wife in the year 1998 has been considered to be Rs. 3,000/- and the Tribunal is considered the income as relied upon in the case of Lata Wadhwa and others vs. State of Bihar and others, 2002(1) T.A.C. 138 (SC). The Tribunal has deducted 1/3 from her same income and has considered Rs. 24,000/- and granted multiplier of 13 as even accordingly to the judgment of this Court and the judgment of Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (ACJ) 1298.9, the multiplier would be 13. 16. Hence, the same submission of learned counsel for the appellant is also not accepted. The Tribunal has not considered any amount under the head of future income. The rate of interest is 6% and, therefore, it cannot be said that the quantum is on the higher side. This takes this Court to the issue regarding driving licence. 16. Hence, the same submission of learned counsel for the appellant is also not accepted. The Tribunal has not considered any amount under the head of future income. The rate of interest is 6% and, therefore, it cannot be said that the quantum is on the higher side. This takes this Court to the issue regarding driving licence. It is an admitted position of fact that the vehicle (Jeep) was insured with the Insurance Company, which is proved by cogent evidence. The driver was having licence and nothing in rebuttal has been produced either by the owner or proof by the Insurance Company that Shailendra Kumar Yadav, the driver of the said vehicle did not have a valid driving licence. The driving licence has been produced as Document 5-G and the Insurance Company felt that the said driving licence was fake. They could have examined the authority, who had issued the driving licence. In absence of proving the same, the ground taken before this Court that the Tribunal relied on this document, cannot be sustained, in view of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, this submission is also rejected. 17. On all the issues, the answer is against the Insurance Company. 18. This appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. The award and decree, passed on 26.5.2007 in M.A.C.P. No. 104 of 2002 by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Court No. 1, Azamgarh, is confirmed. Interim relief stands vacated. If the amount is yet not deposited, the same be deposited forthwith.