JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Oral): This appeal has been admitted for hearing and has been taken up for final disposal today, keeping in view the limited controversy involved in it, as well as on the request of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Admitted facts of this case are that Rajinder Singh Sen son of appellant and respondent No. 6 died in a motor vehicle accident while he was travelling in bus bearing registration No. PB-2A-8203. Its driver was Gopal Kishan, and its owner was Punjab Roadways. This bus met with an accident with truck bearing registration No. PB-07-2385. Owner of this vehicle was respondent No. 1. On the date of accident, it was admittedly insured with respondent No. 3, Kulbir Singh was its driver. This accident took place on 29.8.1997, at a place known as Tuto Majari, near Malpur, District Hoshiarpur. 3. For claiming compensation, widow and daughter of deceased Rajinder Singh, filed claim petition No. 47-N/2 of 1997, before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (2), Sirmaur District, at Nahan. This was disposed of on 16.12.1998. 4. It may be appropriate to notice here that claim petition that was filed before the Tribunal below out of which present appeal has arisen was jointly filed by Sant Singh Sen and Smt. Susheela Devi his wife against respondents No. 1 to 5. Necessity of specifically noticing this fact has arisen, because" Susheela Devi was arrayed as proforma defendant in the claim petition filed by the widow and daughter of Rajinder Singh Sen at Nahan. In this case, vide award dated 16.12.1998, learned Tribunal at Nahan had awarded in all a sum of Rs. 10,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on this amount from the date of filing of this petition i.e. 28.10.1997 till compensation amount was deposited with the Tribunal. While apportioning amount of compensation, admittedly a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- was allowed in favour of Smt. Susheela Devi. What is its effect is the sole question to be determined in present appeal. 5. In the aforesaid background, Shri Guleria, learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the claimants who had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, at Nahan was neither the widow nor daughter of the deceased son. 3,00,000/- was allowed in favour of Smt. Susheela Devi. What is its effect is the sole question to be determined in present appeal. 5. In the aforesaid background, Shri Guleria, learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the claimants who had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, at Nahan was neither the widow nor daughter of the deceased son. If this was true and correct factual position, why both of them were not added as a party in the claim petition filed by appellant and respondent No. 6 particularly when Susheela Devi is a co-claimant with Sant Singh Sen-appellant in this appeal at Nahan. Mr. Guleria was not in a position to satisfy this Court. 6. On a query from the Court, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that his client is about 75 years of age and his wife Susheela Devi-respondent No. 6 is about 70 years of age. This has also material bearing so far present appeal is concerned. 7. As per first proviso to Section 166(1) to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an application under this Section has to be made on behalf of the or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of deceased and such of the legal representatives who have not so joined have to be impleaded on respondents in the application. On this legal aspect, learned Counsel for the parties at the time of hearing were not at variance. 8. On behalf of proforma respondent No. 6-Susheela Devi it was admitted, that compensation has been assessed as well as awarded to her by the Tribunal at Nahan vide award as referred to in the preceding paras. 9. Once this position is admitted as a mater of fact, then there is no legal infirmity in the award of the Tribunal below. 10. Faced with this situation, Shri Guleria, submitted that appellant was dependent on his deceased son. Section 8, Hindu Succession Act, has been wrongly applied by the learned Tribunal below. Per him, legal representatives have to be taken in the sense as to whether a claimant like the appellant was dependent upon deceased or not if answer is in the affirmative, then there is no escape but for allowing compensation to him. Heir referred to the statements of the parties examined in this case. 11. Per him, legal representatives have to be taken in the sense as to whether a claimant like the appellant was dependent upon deceased or not if answer is in the affirmative, then there is no escape but for allowing compensation to him. Heir referred to the statements of the parties examined in this case. 11. Examining this case on the touch-stone of Section 166(1) first proviso to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that keeping in view the age of parents of deceased viz. Sant Singh Sen-appellant and Susheela Devi-proforma respondent No. 6, compensation awarded to respondent No. 6 by the Tribunal at Nahan is on higher side. Age of the claimants is a relevant and material circumstance while apportioning the compensation. 12. Looking to the ages of the appellant as well as respondent No. 6, it is felt that sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest awarded by the learned Tribunal (II), District Sirmaur, at Nahan in claim petition No. 47-N/2 of 1997 decided on 16.12.1998, in fact was to ensure for the benefit of both the appellant as well as his wife respondent No. 6. Despite having knowledge of this award during the course of proceedings before Tribunal below, appellant did not take steps to claim amount of warded compensation at Nahan. May be that he was satisfied with the award in favour of his wife. As such, no exception can be taken to the impugned award passed by the (earned Tribunal below, which is accordingly needs to be upheld. Ordered accordingly. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I see no infirmity in the impugned award, consequently this appeal is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.