JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned Advocate MR. Vibhuti Nanavati for appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2. By filing this appeal, appellant has challenged award made by claims tribunal,Dahod in MACP No. 2308/2004 (Old MACP No.1267/1998) dated 2.9.2008 wherein claims tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,14,089.00 with 9 per cent interest in favour of respondents claimants. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati for appellant has raised contention in respect of prospective income considered by claims tribunal. According to him, there is no basis produced by claimants to justify stability in the income and there was no pleading to that effect justifying prospective, future income and, therefore, claims tribunal has committed gross error in deciding the amount of compensation on the basis of prospective income. He also submitted that looking to the age of deceased 42 years, multiplier of 15 applied by claims tribunal is also on higher side. He submitted that no cogent evidence was produced on record by claimants in respect of income of the deceased. He submitted that the claims tribunal has not considered properly aforesaid aspects of the matter and without any evidence on record, has considered future prospective income which is the basic error committed by claims tribunal and, therefore, award would require interference of this Court. He relied upon the decision of the apex court in case of Bijoy Kumar Dugar versus Bidyadhar Dutta & Ors., AIR 2006 (2) SC 1255 = 2006 ACJ 1058 . He relied upon para 8 and 9 of said judgment and entire paragraphs were read by him before this Court. Therefore, para 8 and 9 of said judgment are reproduced as under: 8. To appreciate the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, we have gone through the relevant material on record. It is by now well-settled that the compensation should be the pecuniary loss to the dependants by the death of a person concerned. While calculating the compensation, annual dependency of the dependants should be determined in terms of the annual loss, according to them, due to the abrupt termination of life. To determine the quantum of compensation, the earnings of the deceased at the time of the accident and the amount, which the deceased was spending for the dependants, are the basic determinative factors. The resultant figure should then be multiplied by a 'multiplier'. To determine the quantum of compensation, the earnings of the deceased at the time of the accident and the amount, which the deceased was spending for the dependants, are the basic determinative factors. The resultant figure should then be multiplied by a 'multiplier'. The multiplier is applied not for the entire span of life of a person, but it is applied taking into consideration the imponderables in life, immediate availability of the amount to the dependants, the expectancy of the period of dependency of the claimants and so many other factors. Contribution towards the expenses of the family, naturally is in proportion to one's earning capacity. In the present case, the earning of the deceased and consequently the amount which he was spending over the members of his family, i.e. dependency is to be worked out on the basis of the earnings of the deceased at the time of the accident. The mere assertion of the claimants that the deceased would have earned more than Rs. 8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month in the span of his lifetime cannot be accepted as legitimate income unless all the relevant facts are proved by leading cogent and reliable evidence before the MACT. The claimants have to prove that the deceased was in a trade where he would have earned more from time to time or that he had special merits or qualifications or opportunities which would have led to an improvement in his income. There is no evidence produced on record by the claimants regarding future prospects of increase of income in the course of employment or business or profession, as the case may be. It is stated that the deceased was about 24 years at the time of the accident. The MACT has accepted Rs. 4,000/- per month, as the earning of the deceased and after deducting Rs. 400/- per month for his pocket expenses, the remaining sum of Rs. 3600/- has been divided into three equal shares, out of which two shares, i.e. Rs. 2400/- per month or Rs. 28,800/- (wrongly mentioned as Rs. 28,000/- in the award), were assessed as loss to both the claimants, who were the parents of the deceased. The ages of the claimants are stated to be between 45 and 50 years and accordingly multiplier of 12 was applied. Thus, a sum of Rs. 28,800/- X 12 = Rs.3,45,600/- was awarded as compensation. 28,800/- (wrongly mentioned as Rs. 28,000/- in the award), were assessed as loss to both the claimants, who were the parents of the deceased. The ages of the claimants are stated to be between 45 and 50 years and accordingly multiplier of 12 was applied. Thus, a sum of Rs. 28,800/- X 12 = Rs.3,45,600/- was awarded as compensation. In addition thereto, a sum of Rs.2,000/- has been given for funeral expenses and a further amount of Rs. 6,000/- under the head "Loss of Estate". The total sum awardable is Rs. 3,53,600/- but since the deceased was held liable for contributory negligence, the liability of the insurer with whom the bus in question was insured is fixed at 50%, i.e. to the extent of Rs. 1,76,800/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim application till the date of payment. The deceased, a young boy of 24 years old, was unmarried and the claimants were his father and mother, the dependency has to be calculated on the basis that within two or three years the deceased would have married and raised family and the monthly allowance he was giving to his parents would have been cut down. Thus, in our view, the MACT has awarded just and reasonable compensation to the claimants. 9.We have gone through the ratio of the above decisions relied upon by the claimants in support of the submission for the enhancement of the amount of compensation. In G.M., Kerala SRTC's case (supra), the claimants have satisfactorily proved on record that the deceased person in that case had a more or less stable job in the newspaper establishment of Malayala Manorama on a monthly salary of Rs. 1032/-. On the basis of the evidence found on record in regard to the prospects of the advancement in the future career of the deceased, this Court has made higher estimate of monthly income at Rs. 2,000/- per month as the gross income and granted relief to the claimants. 4. He also relied upon the decision in case of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. versus S. Rajapriya and two others, 2005 (4) SCALE 336 = AIR 2005 SC page 2985. He relied upon para 9 and 12 thereof in particular, therefore, para 9 and 12 of said judgment are also reproduced as under: 9. 4. He also relied upon the decision in case of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. versus S. Rajapriya and two others, 2005 (4) SCALE 336 = AIR 2005 SC page 2985. He relied upon para 9 and 12 thereof in particular, therefore, para 9 and 12 of said judgment are also reproduced as under: 9. The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalized by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of year's purchase. 12. The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over theperiod for which the dependency is expected to last. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati also placed reliance on the decision of apex court in case of Syed Basheer Ahmed and others versus Mohammed Jameel and another, (2009) 2 SCC 225 and submitted that he is relying upon the said decision of the apex court on the ground that in absence of earning of deceased in a business may increase with the buoyancy in business and at the same time may diminish with a recession in trade. He submits that this aspect has not been considered by claims tribunal while deciding income of deceased and, therefore, he is relying upon said decision of apex court. Except the submissions recorded herein above, no other submission was made by learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati before this Court and no other decision except the decisions referred to above was relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Except the submissions recorded herein above, no other submission was made by learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati before this Court and no other decision except the decisions referred to above was relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Nanavati before this Court. 6. I have considered submissions made by learned Advocate Mr.Nanavati. I have also considered aforesaid decisions relied upon by learned advocate Mr.Nanavati. I have also perused impugned award made by claims tribunal. 7. Accident occurred on 13.7.1998 at about 11.00 a.m. on the Dahod Chakalia Road near Galaiyavad. At that time, deceased Sajjansinh alias Sujansinh was going to his business, at that time, opponent no.1 came with auto rickshaw No.GJ.20.T.3028 in rash and negligent manner and due to excessive and uncontrallable speed, he lost control over the auto rickshaw, dashed with the deceased and due to it, deceased suffered serious injury of fracture and he was admitted in Government Hospital and later on, he was admitted in hospital of Dr. Milan Sheth and operated for two times. It was also alleged that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of opponent NO.1. Complaint was filed at Dahod Rural Police Station vide CR NO.147/98. Based upon aforesaid facts, claim petition was filed by claimants before claims tribunal claiming Rs.25000.00 for loss of estate, Rs.5,40,000.00 for loss of dependency; Rs.10,000.00 towards medical expenditure; Rs.3200.00 for attendants and in all, claimants claimed compensation of Rs.6,00,000.00 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the opponents. 8. Before claims tribunal, opponents no.1 and 2 had remained absent and matter had proceeded ex parte against them. Opponent NO.3 present appellant appeared before claims tribunal and filed written statement at Exh. 16 wherein facts of application were denied. 9. Before this Court, learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati for appellant has not challenged question of negligence on the part of opponent no.1 driver and there was no negligence of deceased at the time when the accident occurred. Opponent NO.3 present appellant appeared before claims tribunal and filed written statement at Exh. 16 wherein facts of application were denied. 9. Before this Court, learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati for appellant has not challenged question of negligence on the part of opponent no.1 driver and there was no negligence of deceased at the time when the accident occurred. So, fact remained that the person aged 42 years died in vehicular accident because of negligence on the part of opponent No.1 driver and because of negligence on the part of driver opponent no.1, owner and insurance company have been held vicariously liable and, therefore, before this court, appellant is not challenging award on the issue of negligence but is challenging award only on the point of quantum which is going to suggest something else, that the insurance company, by one pretext or the another pretext, wants to avoid responsibility arising from the contract of insurance by raising such contentions and wants to avoid statutory liability under the provisions of section 147 of the MV Act. Issues have been framed by claims tribunal at Exh. 17. Before claims tribunal, following oral as well as documentary evidence was produced by claimants, as referred to in para 7 of impugned award: (1) Affidavit of deposition of applicant Exh.21. (2) Discharge certificate from Hospital Exh.23 (3) Medical Bills Exh.24 (4) Birth Certificate Exh.25 (5) Copy of charge sheet Exh. 26 (6) Copy of complaint Exh.28 (7) Copy of panchanama Exh.29 (8) Copy of Insurance Policy Exh.30 (9) Evidence closing purshis Exh.31. 10. As against the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence produced by claimants, no oral as well as documentary evidence has been produced by opponents as observed by claims tribunal in para 8 of award. Thereafter, both sides made their submissions but it is necessary to note that driver has remained absent and insurance company has not led any oral evidence before claims tribunal. 11. Before claims tribunal, submission was made by advocate Mr. Trivedi appearing for appellant insurance company that there was no evidence produced by claimants in respect of income of deceased and, therefore, notional income has to be taken into account and considering age of 45 years, 8/10 multiplier is to be applied and at the most, interest at the rate of 8 per cent can be awarded by claims tribunal. Trivedi appearing for appellant insurance company that there was no evidence produced by claimants in respect of income of deceased and, therefore, notional income has to be taken into account and considering age of 45 years, 8/10 multiplier is to be applied and at the most, interest at the rate of 8 per cent can be awarded by claims tribunal. Except these submissions, no other submission appears to have been made by advocate appearing for appellant before claims tribunal. 12. Claims tribunal examined issue of negligence after considering complaint Exh. 28 panchanama Exh. 29. Claims tribunal considered that the charge sheet is filed against opponent no. 1 and accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of opponent no.1. 13. For the purpose of deciding income of deceased, claims tribunal considered deposition of applicant wherein it was deposed by her that the deceased was earning Rs.100.00 per day from repairing of locks and key and sharpening of knives. While considering such deposition, claims tribunal considered that there is no evidence to support the contention that the deceased was earning Rs.100.00 per day, and, therefore, looking to age and nature of work of the deceased, claims tribunal fixed income of Rs.1500.00 p.m. at the time of his death and then fixed prospective income of deceased at Rs.2250.00 and deducted 1/3d therefrom towards personal expenditure of deceased and held that the loss of dependency p.m. would come to Rs.1500.00 and annual figure would therefore come to Rs.18000.00. Considering birth date of deceased 2.4.56 as shown in birth certificate, and age of deceased 42 years at the time of accident, claims tribunal applied multiplier of 15 and held that the loss of dependency to the family would come to Rs.2,70,000.00 as per multiplier of 15. 14. Considering the reasoning given by claims tribunal in light of the oral evidence of applicant widow of the deceased, it was deposed by her that the deceased was earning Rs.100.00 per day from repairing of locks and key and sharpening of knives. 14. Considering the reasoning given by claims tribunal in light of the oral evidence of applicant widow of the deceased, it was deposed by her that the deceased was earning Rs.100.00 per day from repairing of locks and key and sharpening of knives. Claims tribunal has not accepted the deposition of the widow of the deceased in toto for determining the income of the deceased but claims tribunal has kept in mind that there is no evidence to support the contention that the deceased was earning Rs.100.00 per day, and, therefore, looking to age and nature of work of the deceased, claims tribunal fixed income of Rs.1500.00 p.m. at the time of his death and then fixed prospective income of deceased at Rs.2250.00 and deducted 1/3d therefrom towards personal expenditure of deceased and held that the loss of dependency p.m. would come to Rs.1500.00 and annual figure would therefore come to Rs.18000.00.Applicant widow of the deceased was not able to produce any documentary evidence in the form of photographs of deceased while doing work of repairing of locks, keys and sharpening of knives etc. This being the miscellaneous labour type work carried out by the deceased, according to my opinion, there cannot be any documentary evidence to show such income. Further, this being miscellaneous type of labour work, naturally there would not be any evidence to show that it was being done by deceased. Persons doing such work would naturally not be having documentary evidence in the form of IT Return or anything like that which are otherwise available with professionals and businessmen. Therefore, insurance company is not justified in challenging the income of deceased determined by claims tribunal because claims tribunal has not accepted evidence of widow in toto but has determined income and assessed on notional basis at Rs.1500.00 p.m. and then determined prospective income as per settled proposition of law at Rs.2250.00 and then by deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenditure, determined monthly dependency to the tune of Rs.1500.00. In light of such situation and reasoning given by claims tribunal for determining dependency benefit on the basis of notional income of deceased at Rs.1500.00 in light of oral evidence of widow that deceased was doing repairing work of locks and keys and sharpening of knives, such determination of income cannot be considered to be based on no evidence, therefore, I fail to understand such type of argument advanced by lawyer for insurance company knowing fully well that the deceased was doing miscellaneous labour type of work and as such, there was no any documentary evidence to establish income of deceased, to support oral evidence of widow of deceased. According to my opinion, work of repairing of locks, keys and sharpening of knives are completely miscellaneous work and it was not disputed by insurance company and from earning of deceased by doing such labour type work, legitimate amount has been received by claimants and, therefore, contention to the effect that there was no documentary evidence as regards income of deceased and, therefore, claims tribunal has committed error in determining income or that the assessment of income done by claims tribunal is on higher side, cannot be accepted because for a persons doing such type of labour work, it is very difficult to produce any documentary evidence to justify such income and widow is also not able to produce any document because there cannot be any documentary evidence in support of such oral evidence. Widow of deceased was cross examined by advocate for insurance company before claims tribunal and thereafter, considering her oral evidence, income was assessed by claims tribunal. Therefore, there is no any fault on the part of claims tribunal in assessing income of deceased as per oral evidence of widow of deceased and evidence of widow itself is cogent evidence for determining income of deceased and yet claims tribunal has not believed oral evidence of widow in toto as stated earlier. It cannot be said that a person doing such miscellaneous type of work cannot be having prospects. Therefore, contention of learned advocate Mr. Nanavati that the claims tribunal has committed error in determining compensation on the basis of prospective income of deceased cannot be accepted. It cannot be said that a person doing such miscellaneous type of work cannot be having prospects. Therefore, contention of learned advocate Mr. Nanavati that the claims tribunal has committed error in determining compensation on the basis of prospective income of deceased cannot be accepted. After considering evidence of widow, claims tribunal has considered prospective income of deceased at Rs.2250/- which is less than Rs.2500.00 so there was pleading suggesting income of deceased received by widow less than Rs.2500.00. In view of this back ground, claims tribunal has while assessing income at Rs.1500.00 p.m. considered prospective income at Rs.225/- and so, there was pleading and evidence on record suggesting prospective income of deceased. Apart from that, any person who is engaged in any particular work would always be getting rise in income by doing same type of stable work in future by passage of time and naturally would be earning more than what he was earning previously and therefore, such contention raised by learned Advocate MR. Nanavati also cannot be accepted and same is therefore rejected. 15. As regards contention of learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati that the multiplier of 15 applied by claims tribunal is on higher side, looking to the age of the deceased 42 years considering his date of birth 2nd April, 1956, claims tribunal has applied multiplier of 15. Before claims tribunal, it was submitted by Mr. Trivedi Advocate for opponent no.3 insurance company that the applicant has not produced any evidence of income of deceased and, therefore, income is required to be determined on notional basis. 2nd Schedule read with section 163A of the MV Act suggests multiplier of 15 for the age between 40 to 45 and considering 166 application, whatever compensation worked out by claims tribunal should not have to be less than what is provided in second schedule. In view of that, contention raised by learned Advocate MR. Nanavati that the multiplier of 15 is on higher side cannot be accepted when 2nd Schedule of MV Act read with sec. 163A suggests multiplier of 15 for the age group of 40 to 45. While examining an application under section 166 of of the MV Act, 1988, claims tribunal can consider second schedule read with sec. 163A of MV Act, 1988 and can take guidance therefrom for deciding multiplier and, therefore, that contention raised by learned advocate Mr. 163A suggests multiplier of 15 for the age group of 40 to 45. While examining an application under section 166 of of the MV Act, 1988, claims tribunal can consider second schedule read with sec. 163A of MV Act, 1988 and can take guidance therefrom for deciding multiplier and, therefore, that contention raised by learned advocate Mr. Nanavati cannot be accepted by this court. Amounts awarded by claims tribunal on other heads such as loss of expectation of life, loss of consortium, medical expenses pain, shock and suffering, transportation and funeral expenses etc. are reasonable and just and further, contention has not been raised by appellant on those amounts. Therefore, in view of this back ground, when the claims tribunal has taken into account entire facts and circumstances of the case for awarding compensation and when person who was doing miscellaneous work of repairing of locks, keys and sharpening of knives has died in vehicular accident leaving behind him four minor children and one widow, hard reality must have to be accepted that the compensation should be such from which family of six members including minors is maintained. Family of six members including four minors, deceased and his wife would require income of about Rs.2500.00 to Rs.3000.00 p.m., otherwise, it is very difficult to maintain six persons. Therefore, compensation awarded by claims tribunal considering the matter as a whole cannot be considered to be on higher side or abnormal but it is based on income suggested by widow of deceased who was maintaining family on the basis of income of deceased and, therefore, none of the contentions raised by learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati for appellant can be accepted. Decisions referred to and relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Nanavati are based on the facts of those cases. The principles which have been decided in those decisions are considered by claims tribunal while awarding compensation in favour of claimant. Nanavati for appellant can be accepted. Decisions referred to and relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Nanavati are based on the facts of those cases. The principles which have been decided in those decisions are considered by claims tribunal while awarding compensation in favour of claimant. In this case, there is another aspect of the matter that if the total amount of compensation of Rs.3,14,089.00 is invested in any nationalized bank, then, monthly income that may be received by claimants would be about Rs.2000.00 to Rs.2500.00 and would not be more than that, meaning thereby, as per view taken by apex court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. versus S. Rajapriya and two others, 2005 (4) SCALE 336 , ultimately, it is the duty of claims tribunal to award just compensation. According to my opinion, amount of compensation awarded by claims tribunal considering dependency benefit of Rs.2,70,000.00 cannot be considered to be unjust, unreasonable or on higher side because if that amount is invested in any nationalized bank, then, claimants may be able to get regular income by way of interest which would be almost similar to the contribution which deceased was giving to the family and that purpose behind has been rightly kept in view by the claims tribunal and, therefore, claims tribunal has not committed any error in awarding compensation to claimants and, therefore, matter does not call for any interference of this court since the appellant is challenging award only on quantum considering valuation of appeal at Rs.1,39,000.00 for the purpose of court fee and Rs.6,00,000.00 for the purpose of jurisdiction. Insurance Companies in our country, while accepting premium from the owners of vehicles are not estimating that how much amount they will have to pay at the time of accident in respect of persons who are losing their lives or receiving injuries in vehicular accident, in respect of those persons who are doing miscellaneous work. If some highly qualified skilled person would have died in accident, insurance company would have been required to pay more amount and what would have happened to insurance company in that event? If some highly qualified skilled person would have died in accident, insurance company would have been required to pay more amount and what would have happened to insurance company in that event? Ultimately, it is the risk of business and that aspect must have to be understood by the insurance company while accepting premium and also while paying compensation as a consequence of policy issued by it and not to challenge such type of award of compensation which is considered to be quite just and reasonable amount. This Court is, therefore, deprecating approach and attitude of the insurance company to challenge such award on such too much technical ground. Considering a ward of compensation as a whole, amount awarded cannot be considered to be unreasonable or unjust but it appears to be just and fair compensation and, therefore, there is no substance in this appeal and same is required to be dismissed. 16. Further, in this appeal, insurance company is challenging quantum decided by claims tribunal. Insurance company has no right to challenge quantum except there is permission under sec. 170 of MV Act obtained by insurance company. As per the scheme of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, insurance company is entitled to challenge claim as per statutory defences available under section 149(2) of MV Act, 1988. Question of negligence and quantum would require permission under sec. 170 of MV Act, 1988. Section 170 of MV Act, 1988 is also imposing certain conditions upon insurance company because unless the collusion between owner and driver as well as claimant is established, and in absence of driver and owner from proceedings, insurance company is getting liberty from claims tribunal to make such challenge. In this case, such permission has been granted because of the fact that the driver has remained absent but that does not mean that insurance company can raise contentions only against quantum. Normally when driver and owner are not appearing before claims tribunal, claims tribunal is granting such permission without considering compliance of section 170 of MV Act but here there was no collusion between owner, driver and claimant has been established. Apart from that, when statute has not permitted to raise contention against negligence and quantum except statutory defence covered by sec. 149(2), then, by having permission under sec. Apart from that, when statute has not permitted to raise contention against negligence and quantum except statutory defence covered by sec. 149(2), then, by having permission under sec. 170 of MV Act, 1988, insurance company is not becoming entitled to challenge quantum as if owner has been challenging quantum. Such type of approach and attitude on the part of insurance company is required to be deprecated when it has accepted premium from owner and when insurance company is not having any other statutory defence in the matter. Therefore, on that ground also, appeal challenging only quantum, in absence of any statutory defence is not maintainable and therefore also appeal is required to be dismissed. 17. In Dharmendra Goel versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2008 (3) GLH 315, considering provisions of section 146 of MV Act, apex court observed that when insurance was accepted for the vehicle assessing the value of vehicle to the tune of Rs.3,54,000.00, insurance company cannot deny claim on hyper technical pleas. Relevant observations made by apex court in para 6 of said decision are reproduced as under: It must be borne in mind that Section 146 of the Motors Vehicles Act, 1988 casts an obligation on the owner of a vehicle to take out an insurance policy as provided under Chapter 11 of the Act and any vehicle driven without taking such a policy invites a punishment under Section 196 thereof. It is therefore, obvious that in the light of this stringent provision and being in a dominant position the insurance companies often act in an unreasonable manner and after having accepted the value of a particular insured good disown that very figure on one pretext or the other when they are called upon to pay compensation. This `take it or leave it' attitude is clearly unwarranted not only as being bad in law but ethically indefensible. We are also unable to accept the submission that it was for the appellant to produce evidence to prove that the surveyor's report was on the lower side in the light of the fact that a price had already been put on the vehicle by the company itself at the time of renewal of the policy. We accordingly hold that in these circumstances, the company was bound by the value put on the vehicle while renewing the policy on 13th February, 2002. 18. We accordingly hold that in these circumstances, the company was bound by the value put on the vehicle while renewing the policy on 13th February, 2002. 18. Therefore, in result, this appeal is dismissed. 19. In view of orders passed by this court in first appeal today, no order is required to be passed in civil application for stay and, therefore, civil application for stay is disposed of accordingly. Amount which has been deposited by appellant being unchallenged, let that amount may be invested in any nationalized bank for a period of three years and claimants are entitled for periodical interest from such amount considering fact that there are four minor children whose interest is required to be protected by this court and as regards rest of the amount, let insurance company may deposit same within six weeks from date of receipt of copy of this order before claims tribunal. Registry of this Court is directed to transmit amount, if any, deposited by appellant immediately to claims tribunal.