JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - This appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed at the instance of the claimant-appellants. 2. The claimants are the daughters of one Lambu Bewa, who died in a motor vehicle accident. It is alleged that the accident was caused due to the negligent driving of the driver of the Mini bus bearing registration No. ADJ 6224. The claimants field claim application claiming Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. The owner of the vehicle did not appear in spite of service of notice. The Insurance Company however appeared and filed written statement challenging the allegations made in the claim petition. Though initially, some dispute/was raised by the Insurance Company relating to Insurance Policy, in course of trial the said point was given up. 3. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the bus. It further found that the claimants were not entitled to any compensation as they were the married daughters and not dependants upon the deceased. The Tribunal also observed that the claimants had concealed the fact that the grandson and son of the deceased were alive. Therefore, the Tribunal held that even though a sum of Rs. 25,000/- could have been given to the dependants, no amount was payable to the claimants and the claim petition was dismissed. 4. In the present appeal which has been filed at the instance of the claimants, there is no appearance on behalf of the owner in spite of service of notice. The Insurance Company has however, entered appearance through its lawyer. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that the Tribunal has completely ignored the evidence on record to the effect that the two claimants were the dependants upon the deceased. On perusal of the evidence on record, it appears that P.W. 1 in fact has stated that the claimants were dependants. However, in my opinion, it is unnecessary to delve into this question as the two daughters being the legal representatives of the deceased can claim compensation due to death of their mother caused by the tortious action of the driver of the vehicle. This view gains support from the decisions reported in Kumudini Das and Others Vs. Rajat Kumar Baliar Singh and Another, and Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad Vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Another. This view gains support from the decisions reported in Kumudini Das and Others Vs. Rajat Kumar Baliar Singh and Another, and Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad Vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Another. Therefore, I am unable to agree with the finding of the Tribunal that the claimants being married daughters and not being dependants were not entitled to compensation. So far as the question of existence of son or grandson is concerned, it appears that there was no issue to that effect nor any pleading. It seems that the Tribunal has come to the said conclusion merely on the basis of the averments made in the FIR which had been lodged by one Krushna Chandra Samal, S/o. Ananta Samal. Of course, in the said FIR it is described that the said informant was carrying her grandmother (BUDINA), Lembu Bewa, on a cycle. Merely from the said FIR it could not have been assumed that in fact the said informant was the grandson of the deceased. The observation of the Tribunal that the son of the deceased was also living appears to be based on misreading of the FIR, as in the FIR itself the informant has been described as the son of late Ananta Samal. However, it is unnecessary to decide the question as to whether the deceased had left behind any other legal heir. It is made clear that the amount to be paid as compensation is to be paid to all the legal heirs of the deceased, Lambu Bewa, including the two appellants, subject to the appellants producing proper legal heir certificate. It is made further clear that if there is any other heir, the amount payable by virtue of this judgment shall be equally apportioned among all the heirs according to their entitlement under the Hindu Succession Act. 5. Coming to the question of quantum payable as compensation, it appears that the Tribunal has assessed the amount at Rs. 25,000/- mainly on the basis of figure indicated as no fault liability. The Tribunal has found that the deceased might be getting sum of Rs. 20/- per day and sum of Rs. 600/- per month. Assuming to be so, the dependency of the two claimants can be assessed at Rs. 200/-. Computing that way and applying the multiplier of ten, the total compensation would amount to Rs. The Tribunal has found that the deceased might be getting sum of Rs. 20/- per day and sum of Rs. 600/- per month. Assuming to be so, the dependency of the two claimants can be assessed at Rs. 200/-. Computing that way and applying the multiplier of ten, the total compensation would amount to Rs. 24,000/- and in such view of the matter, it can be said that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- being the maximum amount is payable to the legal heirs of the deceased under no fault liability. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed. It is directed that the Insurance Company shall deposit Rs. 25,000/- along with ten per cent interest from the date of application within a period of three months. If the said amount is not deposited within three months, the awarded amount of Rs. 25,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of twelve per cent thereafter. The amount along with the accrued interest shall be disbursed to the appellants and other legal representatives, if any, in equal proportion. There will be no order as to costs. Since the claimants are ladies, no court-fee is payable. Final Result : Allowed