JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. Shri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the appellant is present. None present even in the revised list on behalf of the respondents no. 1 and 2. 2. Heard arguments. 3. This appeal has been filed against judgment and award dated 13.10.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 18, Meerut in M.A.C.P no. 424 of 2010 (Smt. Sushma Vs. Harpal Singh and another) by which the claimant has been awarded compensation of Rs. 2,60,500/- with 6% interest from the date of filing of the petition. 4. An accident took place on 14.10.2009 in which father of the claimant was dashed by the offending vehicle and sustained injuries and during treatment he died. The number of the offending vehicle has been shown to be PB-10 DT-7995 and the driver was coming from Meerut side driving the offending truck rashly and negligently. In support of the accident, FIR was lodged and after investigation charge sheet was submitted by the police for the offence under Section 279, 337, 304A and 427 IPC. Claimant being married daughter of the deceased filed this claim petition stating that at the time of accident the deceased was aged about 54 years and he was a Rajmistri and contractor and his monthly earning was Rs. 7,500/-. It was also stated that after causing the accident the driver of the offending truck left the truck at the spot and escaped away. Therefore, this claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 5. Against the claim petition, the owner of the truck Harpal Singh filed his written statement denying the allegation of the claim petition and stating that the accident did not take place because of the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver but it took place because of the own negligence of the deceased. It has been further stated that the truck was insured with Insurance Company and driver was holding a valid driving licence on the date of accident and therefore, if at all any responsibility is fixed the responsibility to pay compensation is on the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company also filed written statement denying the allegations of the claim petition and stating that the claimant is not dependent of the deceased being a married daughter and therefore, she is not entitled for any compensation. The Insurance Company also filed written statement denying the allegations of the claim petition and stating that the claimant is not dependent of the deceased being a married daughter and therefore, she is not entitled for any compensation. The insurance of offending vehicle and valid driving licence of the driver has been also denied. 6. On the basis of pleadings of both the sides the learned tribunal framed four issues. The English translation is as below:- 1. Whether on 14.10.2009, when father of the claimant/deceased Ram Gopal was waiting with other persons for bus to go Kairana at Sadak Pukhta, Bus Stand Fugana, Bahad Police Station Fugana, District Muzaffarnagar, offending vehicle bearing registration no. PB-10 BT-7997 of opposite party no. 1 coming from Meerut side and the driver driving the truck very rashly and negligently dashed Ram Gopal and others, caused injuries and during treatment Ram Gopal died? 2. Whether driver of the offending truck bearing registration no. PB-10 BT-7997 was holding valid licence or not? 3. Whether the offending truck bearing registration no. PB-10 BT-7997 was insured by The New India Assurance Company, opposite party no.2? 4. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation amount, if yes, then how much and from whom? 7. From the perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the driving licence of the driver was on record and the learned tribunal found that the driver of the offending truck was having valid driving licence at the time of accident. Similarly, the insurance paper of the offending truck was filed from which it was concluded that the offending truck was very much insured with the Insurance Company. Therefore, the learned Tribunal very rightly decided the Issue no 2 and 3 in favour of the claimant. 8. In support of the claim petition PW-1 claimant and daughter of the deceased and PW-2, Mahboob Ali eyewitness were examined. PW-1 has supported the allegations of the claim petition in her affidavit and statement. PW-2, eye witness has stated that at the time of accident he was present on the bus stand and was purchasing banana when the deceased who was waiting for some bus was dashed by offending truck who came from Meerut side and the driver of the truck was driving the truck very rashly and negligently and after causing accident the driver escaped from the place leaving the offending truck there. As such the eye witness has supported the allegations that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the offending truck driver. The learned tribunal also found that on the basis of FIR the police also investigated into the offence and finding sufficient evidence against the truck driver submitted the charge sheet against him. Post-mortem report also shows that the deceased died out of injury and the nature of the injury was such which could possibly occur in such accident. Therefore, from the evidence on record the learned tribunal found the allegations of the claimant correct so far as the causing of accident by rash and negligent driving of the offending truck is concerned and accordingly decided issue no. 1 in favour of the claimant. 9. The submissions of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the accident took place because of the negligence of the deceased himself and that point has been omitted by the learned tribunal in the judgment and no finding has been given on that point. It appears that from the side of the owner of the offending truck, in para 27 of the written statement the plea of negligence on the part of deceased was taken but no such plea was taken by the Insurance Company. Moreover, if at all there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, this fact was raised by the defendant side but no such evidence given. The law is very much settled on this point that the party who raises the plea of contributory negligence has to give evidence in support of such plea. Merely by showing the place of occurrence as shown in the site map by the Investigating Officer no conclusion can be arrived to hold contributory negligence. Even the driver of the offending truck has not been examined from the side of appellant. As such, I find no force in the plea of contributory negligence as taken by the learned counsel of the Insurance Company, therefore, I find the conclusion which has been reached by the learned tribunal on issue no. 1, 2 and 3 suffers from no perversity or illegality and the same is liable to affirmed. 10. As such, I find no force in the plea of contributory negligence as taken by the learned counsel of the Insurance Company, therefore, I find the conclusion which has been reached by the learned tribunal on issue no. 1, 2 and 3 suffers from no perversity or illegality and the same is liable to affirmed. 10. The second limb of the argument from the side of the learned Insurance Company is that claimant is married daughter and as such she was not dependent on deceased and taking the reference of the Supreme Court judgment in Manjuri Bera Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 643 , the learned counsel has submitted that the extent of the liability to a married daughter is only upto Rs. 50,000/- as held in this judgment. 11. Section 166 of the M. V. Act provides that in case of injury claim petition can be filed by the injured person himself and in case of death, by all or any of the legal representative of the deceased. Thus, sub-section (1) of section 166 provides: "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; Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not jointed 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." 12. XXX XXX XXX 13. It is pertinent to mention that the above provision of the M. V. Act speaks in terms of legal representative. If there is no other legal heir of the deceased, the married daughter is the legal heir and is competent to maintain claim petition. In fact, in the present scheme of law regarding legal heir, there is hardly any difference between son and daughter, whether married or not. If there is no other legal heir of the deceased, the married daughter is the legal heir and is competent to maintain claim petition. In fact, in the present scheme of law regarding legal heir, there is hardly any difference between son and daughter, whether married or not. The married status or major status of heir is only relevant for the purpose of determining dependency which is significant for the purpose of ascertaining the quantum of compensation. 14. In Manjuri Bera (supra), the claim petition was filed by the married daughter under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act under the head no fault liability. It is also pertinent to mention that no fault liability provides for strict liability and the legislative limitation with regards to quantum of compensation under Section 140 of the M.V. Act has been determined to be Rs. 50,000/- and as the claim petition was filed under Section 140 of the said Act, therefore, on the basis of this judgment, it cannot be said that married daughter is only entitled for Rs. 50,000/- under the head of no fault liability under Section 140 of the Act. In fact the reading of the judgment shows that it lays down that 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. It rather affirms that the married daughter is also entitled to claim maintenance irrespective of dependency. 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. Thus, the legal position is that a married daughter even though not dependent on deceased, is entitled to file claim petition in case of death of her father in a motor accident, and in such case, the amount of compensation cannot be less than the amount provided under section 140 of the Act. 15. Therefore, in the instant case, there is no other legal representative and the married daughter can very well maintain the claim petition in respect of accident in which her father has sustained injuries and died because she is single daughter of the deceased. 15. Therefore, in the instant case, there is no other legal representative and the married daughter can very well maintain the claim petition in respect of accident in which her father has sustained injuries and died because she is single daughter of the deceased. No clog can be put on the quantum of compensation on that basis but it should not be less than fifty thousands rupees. As pleaded from the side of claimant, the deceased was Rajmistri and was earning Rs. 7,500/- per month at the time of accident. The learned tribunal reduced this amount and determined the same to be Rs. 4,000/- per month and therefore, it cannot be said that the income of the deceased was assessed in the higher side. The Tribunal has applied one-third deduction and determined the award amount as compensation by further adding the expenses of funeral and loss of love and affection which was calculated to be Rs. 4,500/- only. As such on the age of the deceased according to second schedule of the Motor Accident Act, the tribunal applied the multiplier of 8 and determined the amount of compensation Rs. 2,60,500/- with 6% interest from the date of filing of the petition. Had the Tribunal applied the ratio of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 3104 , the amount of compensation has been much more as it provided a multiplier of 11 for the age 50 to 55. Therefore, the amount of compensation is in lower side and need not to be disturbed. 16. On the basis of the above discussion, I find no force in appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 17. Appeal is dismissed accordingly. 18. The amount of Rs. 25000/- deposited by appellant at the time of filing the appeal shall be remitted back to the learned Tribunal to be paid to the claimant.