ORDER 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by Award dated 14th August, 2014, passed by Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, in Claim Case No. 91/2013, seeking enhancement of the claim amount and declaring the claimants to be dependent on the deceased. It has also come on record that cross objections have been filed by the respondent No. 3, Insurance Company, challenging the Award. Such cross objections were filed on 18.6.2015. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that deceased Manish Kori was their son who died in an accident which took place on 12.3.2012 from a tractor bearing registration No. MP30AA2578 being owned by respondent No. 2, driven by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No. 3 but learned Claims Tribunal has arbitrarily awarded only a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) on the ground that Dhurjan Kori (PW1) admitted in his cross examination that deceased Manish was though his biological son but was given in adoption to elder brother Lajjaram and, therefore, after giving such boy in adoption, Dhurjanlal Kori or Baijobai cannot claim that Manish was their son. It is pointed out that in paragraph 13, this witness has admitted that Lajjaram is his real brother and Manish was also known as Totaram. Name of Totaram is mentioned in the Ration Card of his real brother Lajjoram and Lajjoram had taken his son Manish who was also called as Totaram in adoption. Lajjaram was unmarried and has died. It has also been admitted that since Lajjaram had taken Manish in adoption, therefore, name of Manish @ Totaram is mentioned in the Ration Card of Lajjaram. 3. In view of such facts, the Tribunal has applied ratio of law laid down in case of Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Company and another, as reported in AIR 2007 SC 1474 wherein it has been held that compensation can be claimed by legal representatives of a person and liability in terms of section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act does not cease because of absence of dependency. It has been held that there is a distinction between right to apply for compensation and entitlement to compensation. It has also drawn a distinction that even a married daughter is a legal representative and is certainly entitled to claim the compensation. It has been held that there is a distinction between right to apply for compensation and entitlement to compensation. It has also drawn a distinction that even a married daughter is a legal representative and is certainly entitled to claim the compensation. However, married daughter was not dependent on her father, she was living with her husband in her husband's house, therefore, she was not entitled to claim statutory compensation. It has been held that 'no fault liability' envisaged in section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is distinguishable from the rule of 'strict liability'. In the former, the compensation amount is fixed. It is Rs. 50,000/- in cases of death [section 140(2)]. It is an amount which can be deducted from the final amount awarded by Claims Tribunal. Since, the amount is a fixed amount/crystallized amount, the same has to be considered as part of the estate of the deceased. In the present case, the deceased was an earning member. The statutory compensation could constitute part of his estate. His legal representative, namely, his daughter has inherited his estate. She was entitled to inherit his estate. In the circumstances, she was entitled to receive compensation under 'no fault liability' in terms of section 140 of the said Act. My opinion, is confined only to the 'no fault liability' under section 140 of the said Act. That section is a code by itself within the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 4. Since the Claims Tribunal arrived to a conclusion that Aunt and Uncle are legal heirs of Class I as per provisions contained in the Hindu Succession Act, as adopted father of the deceased had died, therefore, he has right to succeed to the estate of the deceased and, therefore, no error can be attributed to claim awarded under section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act limiting it to Rs. 50,000/-. Thus, no grounds are available for enhancement. Since the claim amount has been restricted to be one under the no fault liability under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, consequential cross objections filed by the Insurance Company deserves to be rejected and is rejected.