JUDGMENT K.L. Issrani, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 7.4.1984 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Seoni, in Motor Claim Case No. 20 of 1983. The respondents have also filed cross objection for grant of the balance amount claimed. 2. The deceased Prashant Madhukar Deshmukh was working as a Supervisor in Milk Collection Scheme, Seoni. On 28.12.1982, the deceased had gone to Lakhuadaun in Government vehicle No. MPZ 5951 belonging to the appellants. The vehicle was being driven by the driver Latif. The appellant Nos. 1 to 3 are the owners of the vehicle. Near village Chhapara, about 32 km. away from Seoni, the vehicle dashed against a big tree. The deceased received serious and fatal injuries. Consequently he died on the spot. The driver Latif also died on the next day. Respondent No. 1, Madhukar, is the father and the respondent No. 2, Shobhana, is the mother of the deceased Prashant. The respondent Nos. 3 to 6 are brothers and sisters of the deceased Prashant. The respondents filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming Rs. 1,44,000/- against the non-applicants/appellants. The appellant Nos. 1 and 2 did not file their written statement. The case proceeded ex parte against them. The appellant No. 3 only filed the written statement. He denied that the deceased Prashant was getting the monthly salary of Rs. 675/-. It was also denied that he was contributing Rs. 400/- per month towards maintenance of the applicants/ respondents. 3. The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 54,000/- against the appellants. Hence this appeal by the non-applicants/appellants. 4. The submission of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants is that except respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the others are not legal heirs. The respondents have failed to prove that the driver was negligent in driving the truck. The appellants have also challenged the quantum awarded being excessive. 5. The respondents have filed cross-objection for granting the balance amount out of their original claim of Rs. 1,44,000/-. According to them, the Claims Tribunal, while arriving at a reduced figure of Rs. 54,000/-, arrived at a conclusion that the deceased contributed only half of his salary to his parents whereas in fact he was contributing 2/3rd only, i.e., Rs. 400/- per month. 1,44,000/-. According to them, the Claims Tribunal, while arriving at a reduced figure of Rs. 54,000/-, arrived at a conclusion that the deceased contributed only half of his salary to his parents whereas in fact he was contributing 2/3rd only, i.e., Rs. 400/- per month. But no one appeals for the claimants to advance their arguments. 6. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the Claims Tribunal has not framed any issue on the point of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver and, therefore, its findings thereon should not be considered, is of no avail. Parties were alive to the issue. The Tribunal, no doubt, has not framed any issue separately on the point but has considered the same in para 9 of its judgment and has held that the driver drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed against a tree. According to the Tribunal, this fact remains unshaken in the cross-examination. On the point of rash and negligent driving, the claimants have examined one Prafulla Shrivastava, AW 3, who has stated that the driver, while driving the vehicle very fast, had dashed the vehicle against a tree with the result that Prashant expired. No one in rebuttal has been examined by the appellants. Rather they have not entered into witness-box to substantiate and support their views. The fact that the vehicle dashed against a tree itself is a proof of rash and negligent driving. There is no pleading or proof that it was due to mechanical failure of brakes or otherwise. In such case, no other conclusion except that the driver was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle can be drawn. Therefore, the finding on the point arrived at by the Claims Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the driver Latif was rash and negligent in driving the milk van, which resulted in his own death and the death of the deceased Prashant. 7. Regarding quantum of the amount awarded, it is an admitted position that the deceased, at the time of his death, was 27 years of age and he had yet to serve for about 30 years till the age of his retirement, which is 58 years. 7. Regarding quantum of the amount awarded, it is an admitted position that the deceased, at the time of his death, was 27 years of age and he had yet to serve for about 30 years till the age of his retirement, which is 58 years. Madhukar, AW 1, the father of the deceased Prashant, has stated that at the time of his death, his son was drawing Rs. 675/- per month and was 27 years of age. To corroborate this, Mohammad Iqbal, AW 2, the Manager of the Milk Scheme, was examined who has also admitted the salary drawn by the deceased Prashant. 8. The Claims Tribunal, on assessing the evidence, has arrived at a finding that Prashant was contributing Rs. 300/- per month to the applicants as the whole family was dependent on him. The yearly dependency was calculated at Rs. 3,600/- and applying the multiplier of 15, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal comes to Rs. 54,000/-, which cannot be said to be excessive because the deceased Prashant had chances for his future promotions also. 9. Therefore, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for in the calculation arrived at by the Claims Tribunal. However, since no one has addressed on cross-objection, we see no reason to enhance t-o amount. There is also reason for it. Prashant was unmarried at the time of his death. If he would have married, then, may be, his contribution to the family could be less also. But there is no material to hold for and against the present contribution to the family. Therefore, there is no substance in the cross-objection also. 10. So far as the entitlement of the respondents for the claim is concerned, admittedly, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the legal heirs of the deceased Prashant being class I heirs. The others are class II heirs. But it has come on record that all the respondents were dependent on the deceased Prashant. This is also the finding of the Claims Tribunal. Nothing is pointed out to disturb that finding. Accordingly we hold that all the respondents are entitled jointly to claim the amount awarded to them. 11. We, therefore, see no merit in the appeal as well as the cross-objection. The appeal as well as the cross-objection, both, are dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.