JUDGMENT : Michael Zothankhuma, J. Heard Ms. R.D Mozumdar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Mr. J. Pawe appears for the respondent Nos 2 & 3. 1. The appellant/Insurance Company has challenged the Judgment dated 14.09.2016 passed by the MACT No. 3, Kamrup (M), in MAC Case No. 2133/2012, by which it has directed the appellant to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 6,78,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing the affidavit-of-evidence, i.e.,16.11.2015 till final payment. 2. The brief facts of the case is that on 16.05.2012, the father of the respondent No. 1/claimant was knocked down from behind, by a mini-bus bearing Registration No. AS-01/Y-0255. The deceased died due to his injuries on 01.06.2012. The deceased left behind his wife, son Dhanjt Kalita, the (respondent No. 1/claimant) and his other son, namely Gunajit Kalita. 3. The respondent No. 1/claimant Shri. Dhanjit Kalita filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V Act,1988. It may be noted here that at the time of the accident, the insurance policy covering the mini-bus was valid. However, as the cheque of the owner of the mini-bus had bounced, the appellant/Insurance Company sent the owner of the mini-bus a Letter dated 04.01.2012 stating that the insurance policy stood terminated from its very inception. As such, on the date of the accident, i.e., on 16.05.2012, the mini-bus was not insured, as the insurance policy stood terminated. 4. The learned Tribunal, after taking the evidence of the parties, awarded compensation of Rs. 6,78,000/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the affidavit-of-evidence till final payment, payable by the appellant/Insurance Company to the respondent No. 1/claimant. Liberty was given to the appellant to recover the compensation amount later from the owner of the mini-bus. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent No. 1/claimant was the adult son of the deceased and as per the proviso to Section 166 of the M.V Act,1988, all the legal representatives of the deceased, who had not been impleaded in the claim for compensation, where to be impleaded as respondents in the claim petition. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent No. 1/claimant was the adult son of the deceased and as per the proviso to Section 166 of the M.V Act,1988, all the legal representatives of the deceased, who had not been impleaded in the claim for compensation, where to be impleaded as respondents in the claim petition. She thus submits that as the wife of the deceased was not made a party in the claim petition, she should be made a party in the present appeal as a respondent. The appellant's counsel further submits that though the learned Tribunal had directed the appellant to satisfy the claim of the claimants by paying the compensation amount awarded and had also given the Insurer, the liberty to recover the same from the owner of the mini-bus, the learned Tribunal had not made any observation with regard to the requirement of the owner of the mini-bus to furnish security for the entire amount, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Shri. Nanjappan & Ors., (2004) 13 SCC 224 . The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that as the claimant was a “major”, working son having a salary, the respondent No. 1/claimant cannot be said to be dependent upon the deceased and accordingly, no compensation can be given to the respondent No. 1, except the amount referable to Section 140 of the M.V Act,1988. 6. Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant submits that the mother of the respondent No. 1, who is also the wife of the deceased, namely Smt. Bhatima Bala Kalita w/o L. Rama Kanta Kalita r/o Balapara P.S Sarthebari District, Barpeta, Assam, expired on 30.10.2013. He also submits that there is no infirmity with the impugned judgment and the same should be upheld. 7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 8. He also submits that there is no infirmity with the impugned judgment and the same should be upheld. 7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 8. The proviso to Section 166(1) of the MV Act,1988 states as follows: “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.” In the present case, as the respondent No. 1/claimant had failed to make his mother as a party in the claim petition, the only question that remains to be decided is whether the son who has attained majority and who is not a dependent, would be entitled to payment of compensation for loss of dependency. 9. In the case of Smt. Manjuri Bera v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd And Another, (2007) 10 SCC 643 , the Apex Court has held as follows:- “12. 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.” As the Apex Court in Smt. Manjuri Bera v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. And Another (supra) has limited the compensation payable to a legal representative, who is not dependent only to the amount allowed in Section 140 of the MV Act,1988, this Court is of the view that the respondent No. 1/claimant will have to be given compensation only to the limit of Rs. 50,000/-, as provided under Section 140 of the MV Act,1988. There can be no compensation awarded to the respondent No. 1 on the basis of loss of dependency, as the respondent No. 1 was working and had attained majority at the time of the death of his father. 10. In view of the above, the appellant/Insurance Company shall deposit Rs. 50,000/-, as provided under Section 140 of the MV Act,1988. There can be no compensation awarded to the respondent No. 1 on the basis of loss of dependency, as the respondent No. 1 was working and had attained majority at the time of the death of his father. 10. In view of the above, the appellant/Insurance Company shall deposit Rs. 50,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till final payment in the MACT No. 3, Kamrup (M) in MAC Case No. 2133/2012, for disbursal to the respondent No. 1. 11. With regard to the contention of the appellant's counsel that the learned Tribunal did not make any observation requiring the owner of the mini-bus to furnish security for the compensation amount, to be paid by the appellant/insurer and which was to be recovered from the owner of the mini-bus, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal failed to mention the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Shri. Nanjappan & Ors., (2004) 13 SCC 224 , wherein it has held at para 8 as follows:- “8..... Before release of the amount to the insured, owner of the vehicle shall be issued a notice and he shall be required to furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the Executing Court shall take assistance of the concerned Regional Transport authority. The Executing Court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the insured, owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the Executing Court to direct realization by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle, the insured. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.” The money deposited by the appellant shall be disbursed by the learned Tribunal after applying the law laid down by the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Shri Nanjappan And Ors (supra), i.e. after notice is issued to the owner of the mini-bus and security is taken for the money to be disbursed. Ltd vs. Shri Nanjappan And Ors (supra), i.e. after notice is issued to the owner of the mini-bus and security is taken for the money to be disbursed. Thus, the Insurance Company shall first pay the compensation amount as per Section 140 of the MV Act,1988 and recover the same from the owner of the accident vehicle, i.e. the respondent No. 2. 12. Consequently, in view of the above, the impugned Judgment dated 14.09.2016 passed by the MACT No. 3, Kamrup (M) in MAC Case No. 2133/2012 is accordingly modified to the extent indicated above. The Insurance Company is allowed to withdraw the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000 that it has deposited with the Registry of this Court. Send back the LCR.