JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. - All these appeals arise out of the same accident, as such those are being disposed of by this common judgment. In this behalf it may be noted that FAOs No. 279 of 1996 and 280 of 1996 arise out of a common award and other two appeals arise out of separate awards passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba. 2. In FAO No. 341 of 1995 deceased is one Lehru Ram. He died in an accident, which took place on 5.11.1993 at 7.30 p.m. at Dawaru Nallah, which falls within the jurisdiction of Police, Station, Kihar. Vehicle involved in this accident being bus bearing registration no. HP-47-0857. Its driver was one Kehar Singh. He was employed by the appellant-Corporation. Driver of this bus died in the accident, besides number of other persons. Factum of accident was not disputed between the parties at the time of hearing. In this case, appellants have been made liable to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 1, 11,000/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of petition i.e. 16.3.1994 till the date of payment. This compensation is inclusive of interim compensation allowed under no fault liability. Besides this, cost of Rs. 550/- has also been levied. Income of the deceased according to his parents was Rs. 2,000/- per month and the learned Tribunal below worked out the dependence of his parents at Rs. 600/-per month or say Rs. 7200/- per annum. Income of Rs. 2000/- p.m. as pleaded by the parents of the deceased was not accepted. 3. In FAO No. 344 of 1995 Bhagat Ram was the deceased. Respondent No. 1 is his widow, whereas respondents No. 2 to 8 is his minor children. Smt. Jeebo mother of the deceased was also one of the claimants. She died during the pendency of this appeal and thus her name was deleted from the array of respondents vide order dated 11.3.1997. Claim set up by the respondents, was that the deceased was 45 years of age and was working as Work Charge regular Beldar with National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited, at Chamba-I Project (hereinafter referred to as the NHPC) and his monthly income was Rs. 3149/-. Learned Tribunal below awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. Claim set up by the respondents, was that the deceased was 45 years of age and was working as Work Charge regular Beldar with National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited, at Chamba-I Project (hereinafter referred to as the NHPC) and his monthly income was Rs. 3149/-. Learned Tribunal below awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 3, 60,000/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of petition i.e. 15.3.1994 till the date of deposit, besides costs of Rs. 550/-. Any amount paid/received by the claimants under no fault liability has been ordered to be adjusted against the final award. Apportionment was also made by the learned Tribunal below. According to it, Rs. 1, 00,000/- as payable to respondent No. 1 and out of the remaining amount Rs. 30,000/- each to respondents No. 2 to 8 and Rs. 50,000/- to Smt. Jeebo, mother of the deceased has been ordered to be paid. 4. So far facts of FAOs No. 279 of 1996 and 280 of 1996 are concerned, they are inter connected and as such they are being taken up together. 5. Deceased was one Desh Raj, who was working as Beldar with the NHPC. He also died in the accident in question as noted hereinabove. His total emoluments were Rs. 2990/- on the date of his death. Whereas his carry home salary was Rs. 2737/-. Evidence to this effect was there before the learned Tribunal below. Since some ambiguity was felt and also keeping in view the fact that the interest of the minors was involved in this case, a witness was summoned by this Court, who appeared as CW-1. He has placed on record of certificate Ext. C-1. His statement is on the file of FAO No. 279 of 1996. Counsel for the parties in these appeals stated that they do not want to lead any rebuttal evidence to the statement of CW-1. As per CW-1, deceased was contributing Rs. 29/- towards family pension per month and another sum of Rs. 224/- per month towards Employment Provident Fund. In this considered view this amount of Rs. 253/- per month was accretion to the estate of deceased since he was to be the beneficiary of this amount in long run. Therefore, his emoluments are to be taken for all purposes at Rs. 2990/-, and after rounding of at Rs. 3,000/- per month for calculating the pendency. 6. In this considered view this amount of Rs. 253/- per month was accretion to the estate of deceased since he was to be the beneficiary of this amount in long run. Therefore, his emoluments are to be taken for all purposes at Rs. 2990/-, and after rounding of at Rs. 3,000/- per month for calculating the pendency. 6. Smt. Banto Devi respondent No. 1 in FAO No. 280 of 1996 along with her three minor sons from the deceased, as legal representatives, had filed the claim petition out of which this appeal has arisen. Whereas on the other hand Smt. Subhdra Devi claimed herself to be the legally wedded wife of deceased Desh Raj. According to her, on the date of his death their matrimonial bond was subsisting. Learned Tribunal below after having examined the evidence on record both oral and documentary came to the conclusion that Smt. Subhdra Devi is the legally wedded wife of the deceased and the so-called marriage between Smt. Banto Devi and deceased was void ab initio. However, the three children who were born from the womb of Smt. Banto Devi and loins of the deceased were held entitled to compensation keeping in view the position of law. While dismissing the claim of Smt. Banto Devi learned Tribunal below awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,24,000/-. This amount was held payable to Smt. Subhdra Devi as well as to three minor sons, namely Masters Kishori Lal, Rajinder Kumar and Shishu. This amount was inclusive of any amount paid/received by the claimants under no fault liability1 and was to carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition i.e. 15.3.1994, till the date of payment. Besides this cost of Rs. 550/- each in both the petitions was also awarded. Half of awarded amount has been made payable to Smt. Subhdra Devi and the remaining half has been ordered to be made payable to three minor sons in equal shares. Directions have also been issued regarding investment etc. 7. Award amount in all the four appeals has been held to be payable by the appellant-Corporation as noted hereinabove. 8. In this background it was urged, by learned Senior Counsel that the compensation awarded is not payable by his clients. Per him, for all purposes liability is of the NHPC. Directions have also been issued regarding investment etc. 7. Award amount in all the four appeals has been held to be payable by the appellant-Corporation as noted hereinabove. 8. In this background it was urged, by learned Senior Counsel that the compensation awarded is not payable by his clients. Per him, for all purposes liability is of the NHPC. It was the NHPC who was in actual control of the bus after having hired the same. He further stated that driver was to ply the bus under command and control of such Corporation. Therefore, for all acts of omission and commission of the driver it is the NHPC who is liable and not the Himachal Road Transport Corporation, as has been held by the learned Tribunal below. He further submitted that the compensation assessed in all the four cases is otherwise excessive and to support the same there is no legally acceptable evidence. 9. All these pleas have been controverted by the learned Counsel appearing for the claimants-respondents. Who submitted that compensation is just and proper, which calls for no interference in the three appeals, other than FAO No. 341 of 1995. In this case Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, learned Counsel submitted that compensation needs to be enhanced as prayed by his clients in the Cross-Objections. Per him, income has not been properly assessed and as a result of which learned Tribunal below has fallen into an error. Similarly in the case of Smt. Banto Devi it was urged by Mr. Anand Sharma, learned Counsel, that she was the legally wedded wife of the deceased Desh Raj and reliance in this behalf was placed on contemporaneous official record of the Gram Panchayat, wherein not only three sons but Smt. Banto Devi was also recorded as wife of deceased Desh Raj. These pleas have been controverted by Mr. Naresh Kumar Sood, learned Counsel appearing for Smt. Subhdra Devi in FAO No. 279 of 1996. Per him, in the face of the earlier litigation between Smt. Subhdra Devi and deceased, it is clearly made out that his client was the only legally wedded wife of the deceased. He referred to the documentary evidence produced by Smt. Subhdra Devi during the course of pendency of claim petition filed by her to support her claim. 10. Mr. Per him, in the face of the earlier litigation between Smt. Subhdra Devi and deceased, it is clearly made out that his client was the only legally wedded wife of the deceased. He referred to the documentary evidence produced by Smt. Subhdra Devi during the course of pendency of claim petition filed by her to support her claim. 10. Mr. Maniktala, learned Counsel appearing for the NHPC in all the four appeals stated that so far his client is concerned, it was only hirer of the bus for carrying of its staff to and from the Dam site to Surangani. Neither the vehicle nor the driver as well as conductor were under the control or otherwise of his client. According to him, it was liable for payment of bring charges and nothing more. As such his client cannot be held liable for payment of-compensation as was urged by Mr. Chandel. He reiterated that compensation, if any, is payable by the Himachal Road Transport Corporation and none else. 11. After having heard learned Counsel, for the parties and after having gone through the record of all these four cases as well as for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the awards passed in all .these cases while assessing compensation to the respondents, as also while determining the inter se rights in cases of Smt. Banto Devi and Smt. Subhdra Devi i.e. FAO No. 280 of 1996 and 279 of 1996, respectively. 12. In the first instance, I will deal with FAO No. 341 of 1995 with Cross Objection No. 87 of 1997. Looking to the evidence produced by the parties in claim petition out of which FAO No. 341 of 1995 has arisen. I am satisfied that there is evidence from contemporaneous official record i.e. Gram Panchayat concerned that the deceased has been engaged as Beldar on muster roll basis. Regarding engagement of-deceased Lehru with the NHPC there is no evidence produced on record to substantiate this aspect. Whereas there is statement of PW-4 Brij Lai, Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Biyana to the effect that the deceased was working as labourer in the village for laying the streets Pucca. He was engaged by the Panchayat on daily wages of Rs. 30/-. He has placed on record Photostat copy of one of such muster rolls. Whereas there is statement of PW-4 Brij Lai, Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Biyana to the effect that the deceased was working as labourer in the village for laying the streets Pucca. He was engaged by the Panchayat on daily wages of Rs. 30/-. He has placed on record Photostat copy of one of such muster rolls. In case deceased was working with the NHPC, there was nothing that prevented his parents to produce evidence to this effect. Looking to the nature of his employment, which was admittedly casual, I find that compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal below in its award (out of which FAO No. 341 of 1995 has arisen), calls for no interference, as just compensation has been awarded to the respondents-claimants and as a result of this the Cross Objections are also liable to be dismissed. 13. Now coming to FAO No. 344 of 1995. Looking to the over all facts and circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the deceased was working with the NHPC and his monthly wages were as per Ext. PW-5/A. Looking to the calculations made on the basis of this certificate and other evidence on record I am of the view that compensation assessed is just and reasonable. Therefore, it calls for no interference. 14. At the time of hearing of this appeal learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 8 stated that respondent No. 9, Smt. Jeebo has since died and her legal representatives are respondents No. 1 to 8, as such compensation payable to the deceased respondent No. 9 needs to be apportioned between these respondents. Modification is required in this appeal so far apportionment is concerned, while upholding the award. Reason being that widow of the deceased had been given more than three times of what had been awarded to the minors. This in my considered views is neither fair nor just. Because the minor respondents have to grow in times to come and for their education, maintenance, upkeep as well as marriage more money will be required. Therefore, while upholding the award of Rs. 3, 60,000/-, inclusive any amount paid or received by the claimants, with 12% interest from the date of claim petition i.e. 15.3.1994 and Rs. Because the minor respondents have to grow in times to come and for their education, maintenance, upkeep as well as marriage more money will be required. Therefore, while upholding the award of Rs. 3, 60,000/-, inclusive any amount paid or received by the claimants, with 12% interest from the date of claim petition i.e. 15.3.1994 and Rs. 550/- as costs, it is ordered while modifying the award regarding apportionment that all the respondents i.e. 1 to 8 shall share the amount in equal share with interest and costs. 15. Now coming to the remaining two appeals. These need to be dealt with together. So far findings of the learned Tribunal below regarding matrimonial bond between the deceased and Smt. Subhdra Devi being in existence on the date of death of Desh Raj are concerned, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter those call for no interference. 16. Smt. Subhdra Devi had instituted proceedings seeking divorce in: the Court of learned District Judge, Kangra Division at Chamba. Certified copy of this petition is Ext. P.2. Its reply filed by the deceased is Ext. P. 1. The perusal of Ext. P.1 clearly shows that the marriage between the parties was subsisting was admitted by him, deceased Des Raj. Finally this petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce was dismissed by the then learned District Judge, Kangra Division, Camp at Chamba. File was requisitioned from that Court and these documents stand proved through the Court officials during trial of petition filed by Smt. Subhdra Devi. Thereafter Des Raj and Smt. Subhdra Devi had parted ways in accordance with law, there is no evidence produced by Smt. Subhdra Devi. Onus was heavy on Smt. Subhdra Devi to show that how this matrimonial bond was dissolved. What was its proof, there is no such evidence. She is her statement has, however, stated that she was married to-the deceased 11/12 years ago. Her statement was recorded on 15.9.1994. She further stated that her marriage was solemnised by her Massi, (sister of her mother) with the deceased and heir cohabitation resulted in her begetting three sons named above. Procreating children is one thing, subsistence of legal and valid marriage is another. Smt. Banto Devi had been able to establish the former but has miserably failed to establish the latter. In these circumstances her claim had been rightly rejected by the learned Tribunal below. Procreating children is one thing, subsistence of legal and valid marriage is another. Smt. Banto Devi had been able to establish the former but has miserably failed to establish the latter. In these circumstances her claim had been rightly rejected by the learned Tribunal below. As such the findings to that effect need to be upheld. 17. Now coming to the apportionment of the compensation awarded. Fifty per cent of the awarded amount has been made payable to Smt. Subhdra Devi and the remaining fifty per cent to three sons of the deceased from Smt. Banto Devi. 18. In my considered view, this apportionment is not only illegal but is contrary to law and is also unjust and thus needs to be interfered with. Position of three sons of the deceased Des Raj from Smt. Banto Devi is at par with his legitimate children. That being so I am of the view that all the four should share the compensation amount equally. Learned Tribunal below while apportioning fifty per cent to the three sons in equal share fell into error when it ignored the fact that these children have to grow up, they need to be looked after, educated and then have .to fend for themselves, to be married .in times to come etc. etc. In these circumstances it is ordered that awarded compensation shall be shared by Smt. Subhdra Devi and three minors, namely Kishori Lal, Rajinder Kumar and Shishu in equal share with proportionate interest. 19. Since three minors are involved, I think that this is a fit case where the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Order 41 Rule 33 C.-P.C. needs to be exercised so far working out of the payable compensation is concerned. Rounding of the sum of Rs. 2990/- to Rs. 3,000/- per month, as per Ext. C-1, and then applying the well settled and recognized unit system followed by the Courts in India including the Supreme Court, dependence of three sons and Smt. Subhdra Devi comes to Rs. 2140/- per month or say Rs. 25,680/- per annum (2140x12). 20. No amount for loss to the estate/conventional damages has been allowed. Similarly, no amount for the loss of consortium has been granted to Smt. Subhdr Devi because of death of her husband. A sum of Rs. 8,800/- needs to be allowed by .way of conventional damages as well as funeral expenses etc. 25,680/- per annum (2140x12). 20. No amount for loss to the estate/conventional damages has been allowed. Similarly, no amount for the loss of consortium has been granted to Smt. Subhdr Devi because of death of her husband. A sum of Rs. 8,800/- needs to be allowed by .way of conventional damages as well as funeral expenses etc. to be shared by all the four claimants, i.e. Smt. Subhdra Devi and three .minors namely, Kishori Lal, Rajinder Kumar and Shishu. In addition to it, a further sum of Rs. 6,000/- is to be paid to Smt. Subhdra Devi on account of loss of consortium. Thus in all a total sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-(2140x12x15+8300+6000) is payable by the appellants to these four i.e. Smt. Subhdra Devi and three minors and is inclusive of any amount paid/deposited under no fault liability. Rs.3, 94,000/- are to be shared equally by these four. And Rs. 6,000/-are to be paid only to Smt. Subhdra Devi. This amount is inclusive of any amount paid/deposited by the appellants. It shall also carry interest, at the rate of. 12% per annum from the date of petition i.e. 16.3.1994 as ordered by the learned Tribunal below. , , 21. No other point is urged. 22. In view of the aforesaid discussion FAO NO. 341 of 1995 and Cross Objections No. 87 of 1997 and FAO No. 344 of 1995, both are dismissed. And the impugned Award in FAOs No. 279 and 280 of 1996 are modified in the following terms:- (a) That total amount payable i.e. Rs. 4, 00,000/- will be inclusive of amount paid/deposited under no fault liability; (b) This amount of Rs. 4, 00,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 16.3.1994; and (c) This out of the amount of Rs. 4, 00,000/-, Rs. 3, 94,000/-shall be shared- equally by Smt. Subhdra Devi and three sons of the deceased from Smt. Banto Devi with proportionate interest. Remaining with proportionate interest will be payable exclusively to Smt. Subhdra Devi. 23. Parties are left to bear their own costs in these appeals/cross objections.