Bhawani Sing, J. - (1.)APPELLANT No. 3 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is transposed as Respondent No. 2 and the appeal is considered on behalf of appellants No.l and 2. Necessary correction be made in the cause title by the Registry of this Court. Shortly stated, appeal arises out of the award dated 19th September, 1995 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Baroda In MAC Petition No. 70 of 1990 paying compensation of Rs. 1,12,000.00 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent p.a. from the date of application till realization with proportionate costs. There is no dispute with regard to taking place of accident and the death of Prabhatbhai Maganbhai Vasava caused as a result of rash and negligent driving of Tempo bearing Registration No. GRQ 4475 hitting Motorcycle bearing Registration No. GUK 7117 of Kantibhai Ukedbhai Bariya. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sec. 166 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Sec. 8 - Question arise for consideration is whether the sister of the deceased after marriage is entitled for compensation Held that the claimant is the legal representative of the deceased and falls amongst class II heirs in the schedule to the Hindu Succession Act - Her Question calls for consideration is, whether the claimant is entitled to compensation. Of course, there is no dispute of her entitlement till mafriage. After marriage, it is contended that she is not entitled as she no longer remains dependent on her parents, rather, she is dependent on her husband. In paragraph 32 and 33 of the impugned award, this matter has been examined by the Claims Tribunal in the context of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and section 8 of the. Hindu Succession Act, 1956, arriving at the conclusion that the claimant is the legal representative of the deceased and also falls amongst Class II heirs in the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, therefore, she is entitled to compensation. In our considered opinion, the conclusion arrived at by the Claims Tribunal is absolutely correct and in accordance with law. A woman is generally dependent upon parents and perhaps, even after the marriage, they look after her irrespective of the fact that her husband is there to look after her. Even otherwise, the accident took place when she was unmarried, therefore, her entitlement for compensation is seen on this date and subsequent marriage would not disentitle her from the right which has already become available to her. In this case, there are no parents, brother has died in the accident. In case the contention of the appellant is accepted, joint tort feasures are likely to benefit which is not the intention of the legislation. Legislation intends to punish the tort feasures for commission by imposing compensation. Division Bench Judgment of this Court in REVABEN AND OTHERS V/S. KANTIBHAI NAROTTAMBHAIGOHIL AND ANOTHER [1995 ACJ 5481 does not lay down absolute disqualification against women disentitling them from claiming compensation in case of marriage after the accident nor it should apply in view of the changed scenario with regard to entitlement of a woman in the property of her parents. Law has, therefore, to be flexible and advance according to the changing climate. No other submissions were made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Consequently there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.