ORDER Singh, C.J. -- 1. Through this appeal, award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur in M.V.C. No. /2000/1, dated November 7, 2001, has been challenged by the claimants who are parents of deceased Ajay Sengar. 2. Material facts of the case are that in the morning of October 4, 1999 at about 10.00 a.m., Ajay Senger (deceased) met with an accident when Dumper No. MP 10- A/5599 driven by Ashok Garhewal, owned by S.E.W. Construction Company Ltd. and insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd., hit the motorcycle on which deceased was coming from the opposite side. As a result of his accident, deceased died on the spot. He was 27 years old, a brilliant student who, after completing degree in Master of Business Administration course, was selected by Maheshwar Hydel Power Corporation Ltd., Mandleshwar (Khargone) against the post of Management Trainee on contract basis for a period of 5 years. On the date of accident, he was being paid• stipend of Rs. 6,000/- per month. Looking to his bright career, he could acquire the status of Deputy General Manager in future and earn salary of Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- per month. Accordingly, compensation of Rs. 8,60,40,000/- is claimed along with interest. Allegation is that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by dumper driver otherwise it could not have happened. 3. Respondents have contested the claim alleging that the deceased was responsible for the accident. He lost balance on hearing the horn of the dumper. Moreover, the Driver stood exonerated of criminal liability, by the Court when he was prosecuted for offence under section 304-A of IPC. 4. United India Insurance Company alleges that the Insurance Company with which the Motorcycle was insured, should also have been made party to the case. 5. On the pleadings of parties, Claims Tribunal framed as many as six issues. After recording of evidence and hearing the parties, finding drawn are that the accident took place as alleged as a result of which the deceased died. It is said that Insurance Company with which Motorcycle was insured was not a necessary party. Both the driver of the Dumper and the Motorcycle possessed valid driving licence. Ultimately, the compensation of Rs. 4,44,000/- has been awarded with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till payment. 6. It is said that Insurance Company with which Motorcycle was insured was not a necessary party. Both the driver of the Dumper and the Motorcycle possessed valid driving licence. Ultimately, the compensation of Rs. 4,44,000/- has been awarded with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till payment. 6. Shri A.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for appellant, vehemently urges that the Claims Tribunal did not assess the compensation justly and properly. It did not take into consideration the fact that deceased was a brilliant student appointed by the Company where he was to earn promotion after promotion and reach the stage of General Manager who generally gets monthly salary of Rs. 50,000/-. He was likely to complete training after four months and get into the post of Engineer. Accordingly, Tribunal has chosen low multiplier of 12 instead of 18 applicable in this case. 7. Shri S.K. Rao representing Insurance Company submits that at the time of incident deceased was receiving stipend of Rs. 6,000/-, therefore, the Claims Tribunal has rightly arrived at the dependency and looking to the nature of evidence, multiplier of 12 has rightly been applied. Moreover, the deceased was receiving handsome salary and the award of compensation to the mother is quite reasonable. It is sheer guess to say that the deceased could have reached the position of General Manager in the Company at later stage since his future was bright. 8. Shri V.R. Rao, learned counsel representing the Construction Company submits that claimant has not produced satisfactory evidence as to the salary of various posts which he could think of achieving at later stages. Therefore, only satisfactory figure on which the dependency can be worked out is the stipend of Rs. 6,000/-, the deceased was receiving at the time of accident. Shri Rao further submits that 2/3 of the dependency would have gone to the deceased and 1/3 left to the claimant and there is no challenge to the denial of compensation to the father of deceased, therefore, he cannot be paid the compensation. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that claimants have already been paid Rs. 2,00,000/- by the Company towards Group Insurance Policy, therefore, this amount should be deducted from the compensation which may be worked-out. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that claimants have already been paid Rs. 2,00,000/- by the Company towards Group Insurance Policy, therefore, this amount should be deducted from the compensation which may be worked-out. 9. Giving serious consideration to the matter, we proceed to record that Ajay Senger was 27 year old at the time of accident. He had been selected by the Company to work for five years initially as Management Trainee, then Assistant Manager on the date of accident, deceased had completed the training for 8 months. He was receiving stipend of Rs.6,000/- per month and was to become Assistant Manager. Looking to the hierarchy of service, last being of General Manager whose monthly salary is Rs. 50,000/- per month, it would not be unre8hstic to conclude that after completion of one year, the deceased would atleast get Rs. 10,000/- per month along with other perquisites generally available to Company employees. Future chances of promotion were also there, but for determination of suitable multiplier, all ponderables and imponderables of life have to be taken into consideration besides the age of the parents, lesser being of the mother (47). Suitable multiplier should be 18. 10. Fixing the monthly income of deceased at Rs. 10,000/-, deducting 1/3 towards personal expenditure, rejecting contention of Shri V.R. Rao, dependency works out to Rs. 6,666/- and yearly Rs. 79,992/-. Using multiplier of 18, compensation workes out to Rs. 14,39,856/-. In addition, claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 10,000/- for loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 2,500/- loss to the estate and Rs. 2,000/- as funeral expenses taking the total amount of compensation to Rs. 14,45,356/-. It shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till payment. 11. Now, we deal with the contention whether father of deceased is entitled to compensation. Shri V.R. Rao, learned counsel, submits that father is not dependent on the deceased since he was employed and receiving handsome salary, however, the compensation may be awarded to the mother. We do not appreciate this contention to the extent it is advanced. Simply because legal representatives of the deceased are earning members and do not depend upon the deceased for survival, claim for compensation cannot be denied. We do not appreciate this contention to the extent it is advanced. Simply because legal representatives of the deceased are earning members and do not depend upon the deceased for survival, claim for compensation cannot be denied. Assuming all the legal heirs of the deceased are in service and receiving salary or their own income, does it mean that claim petition is to be dismissed as not maintainable? We are satisfied that this is not the purpose of the legislation and in case it is held as contended by the respondents, the tort feasor(s) are the beneficiaries which is not the purpose of legislation. Compensation is assessed as awarded for the death of a person to his legal heirs who sustain loss on account of his death by the tort-feasor(s) or wrong doer(s). Therefore, compensation is awardable, and distributed amongst the legal representatives depending on the facts of the case. Simply because, award of compensation to the father has not been challenged, Court can consider the fact and award compensation as per law. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The award is modified and compensation of Rs. 14,45,356/- is awarded along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till payment as under: (1) Shri Chandan Singh (Father) 30% (2) Smt. Sheela Senger (Mother) 70% Compensation shall be paid to the claimants within three months without making deduction of any amount paid to the claimants by the Company, whether by way of ex-gratia payment or Group Insurance or otherwise.