JUDGMENT Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Ashok Mehrotra, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No. 1. Notice was sent to respondent No. 2 but it is reported that neither envelope containing the notice nor the Regd. AD has been received back as undelivered. The notice is thus deemed sufficient. 2. This appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeks to question the correctness of award rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MACP No. 49/2012. The award made under Section 166 (1) of the Act is challenged on the sole ground that future prospect of salary of the deceased has not been rightly computed by adding 50% of salary to the amount determined by the Tribunal particularly when the age of deceased was 28 years. 3. It may be noted that the deceased was an unmarried daughter of the appellants. The appellant No. 1 being a self-employed person under the State Government, was held not to be a dependent of the deceased daughter. Mother of the deceased being unemployed was thus treated to be the only dependent of the deceased daughter and entitled to compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. It may be relevant to note that claim under Section 166 (1) of the Act, for the purpose of compensation is to be instituted on behalf of or for the benefit of legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives, who have not joined in such an application, shall also be impleaded as respondents to the application. 5. The relevant provision for reference is reproduced below: “166. 5. The relevant provision for reference is reproduced below: “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 authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be: 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.” 6. Section 163A (1), reproduced hereinafter, may also be looked at for the purpose. “163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, “permanent disability” shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923). (2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule.” 7. The dependents in the context of a claim for compensation are also defined under Section 123 (b) of the Railways Act, 1989. (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule.” 7. The dependents in the context of a claim for compensation are also defined under Section 123 (b) of the Railways Act, 1989. Section 123 (b) of the Act is extracted below: “123(b) “dependant” means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger, namely:— (i) the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parent; (ii) the parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and a minor child of a pre-deceased son, if dependant wholly or partly on the deceased passenger; (iii) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter, if wholly dependant on the deceased passenger; (iv) the paternal grandparent wholly dependant on the deceased passenger.” 8. Essentially the entitlement for compensation under welfare legislation ought to be consistent looking to the essence and object of law but use of different phraseology in the respective Acts makes the intention of legislation hazy. 9. The legal representatives to whom compensation is admissible under Section 166 of the Act are broadly interpreted what in common parlance is understood as dependents only. The term ‘legal representative’ is not defined under the definition clause i.e. Section 2 of the Act, therefore, to understand the purpose of law, the definition under Section 2(11) CPC is taken aid of, which for ready reference is reproduced below: “2 (11) “legal representative” 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.” 10. To understand the concept better, reference can also be made to the provisions of Legal Representations Suits Act, 1855 but the fact remains that object of law has not to be lost sight of. 11. In my humble view, right to compensation broadly is a family right. It is an offshoot of Article 14 and 21 read with Article 38 of the Constitution of India. 11. In my humble view, right to compensation broadly is a family right. It is an offshoot of Article 14 and 21 read with Article 38 of the Constitution of India. It is the purpose of law that has to be weighed in accidental cases rather than the law of succession whereunder the principle of lineal descendence may have its application. A statutory claim commences as soon as a person is injured or his death is occurred. The principles underlying Section 306 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, whereunder a demand or right of the deceased in respect of a personal injury or grant of relief becoming nugatory as a consequence of the death becomes extinct by virtue of the rule of ‘actio personalis motiur cum persona’ may not have application once the claim devolves upon a dependent under the special law, therefore, finding recorded by the Tribunal that father of the deceased being employed was not a dependent is not a correct proposition of law. The source of income of the father may have a bearing upon the quantum of compensation but his dependence cannot be ruled out altogether. 12. Insofar as compensation is concerned, the future prospect having been statutorily prescribed to be proportionate to 50% of the actual salary, was thus liable to be added to that extent, but since father of the deceased was employed under the State Government, the addition to the extent of 30% does not suffer from any statutory violation for the reason that the schedule prescribed under the Act has merely a guiding force and does not operate as a mandatory rule of law. The chances of marriage of the daughter would have further substantially affected the future purpose. 13. It is also noticed from the impugned award that compensation for loss of love and affection which though being prescribed under the schedule has not been adverted to at all by the Tribunal. 14. The ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant to this extent deserves consideration particularly in the light of judgement placed reliance upon as in Sandhya Rani Debbarma and others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2016 (6) AWC 5517 (SC). 15. On a careful consideration of the impugned award, it is seen that no compensation has been awarded to the appellants under the identified head of loss of love and affection in terms of the schedule. Ltd. and another, 2016 (6) AWC 5517 (SC). 15. On a careful consideration of the impugned award, it is seen that no compensation has been awarded to the appellants under the identified head of loss of love and affection in terms of the schedule. This Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, would quantify a sum of Rs. One Lakh under this head and the same is awarded to the appellant in addition to the compensation awarded to the claimants under the impugned award. To the above extent the impugned award shall stand modified and the consequences shall follow. 16. The FAFO is partly allowed.