JUDGMENT : J.K. Maheshwari, J. 1 Today the case is listed in default of process fee on correct address of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. On perusal of the records, it reveals that this appeal is filed only for apportionment of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. It is admitted fact that indemnifying the liability, the insurance company has made all the payment, however, issuance of fresh notice will unnecessarily keep pending this appeal. 2 This appeal has been filed against the impugned award dated 11.5.2007 passed in Claim Case No. 237 of 2007 by Second Additional Member, M.A.C.T. (Fast Track Court), Jaora, Distt. Ratlam, whereby while awarding the total sum of Rs. 5,16,600, only Rs. 16,600 in favour of the appellant, who is widowed mother of the deceased has been directed, thus with a view to apportion the reasonable sum in favour of appellant, this appeal has been filed. 3 It is undisputed fact that widowed mother was residing along with the deceased and respondent Nos. 4 to 8, but while apportioning the amount of compensation, the Tribunal has observed that the widow of deceased and the minor kids have to live for a long life, and the age of widowed mother is about 58 to 60 years and she may reside with other sons, however, amount of Rs. 16,600 only being directed in her favour. 4 Mr. Pankaj Darotiya, counsel for the appellant submits that as per the statement of widowed mother as well as wife of the deceased, it is apparent that the widowed mother was residing along with deceased. In such circumstances, it cannot be inferred on the basis of presumption that mother is having two sons and she may reside with the other sons. Apportionment of compensation as directed in favour of appellant Rs. 16,600 is inadequate from the total compensation. 5 On the other hand, Mr. H.G. Shukla, counsel for respondent insurance company submits that he has deposited the entire amount, however, he has nothing to say in the matter of apportionment of sum, it is with the court to pass appropriate orders in this regard. 6 Mr. Thakur and Mr. Dave, counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 On the other hand, Mr. H.G. Shukla, counsel for respondent insurance company submits that he has deposited the entire amount, however, he has nothing to say in the matter of apportionment of sum, it is with the court to pass appropriate orders in this regard. 6 Mr. Thakur and Mr. Dave, counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 have relied upon the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal and argued that the apportionment of award as directed by the Tribunal is just and proper looking to her age and availability of other son also. 7 After having heard learned counsel for the parties and looking to the fact that the appellant is a widowed mother and in the evidence it has come on record that she was residing along with deceased, however, in such circumstances, the findings as recorded to pay the compensation of Rs. 16,600 to the appellant is unreasonable. In the opinion of this court, at least 10 per cent amount of total sum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal along with interest is liable to be paid to widowed mother of the deceased. Accordingly, the directions of apportionment and deposit of amount is required to be modified by the executing court concerned. 8 In view of foregoing, this appeal is allowed in part and by apportioning the compensation, it is directed that Rs. 40,000 in addition to the sum already awarded by the Tribunal be further deposited in the share of appellant. Accordingly, direction issued for apportionment of compensation is modified. If the appellant moves an application before the executing court, the court concerned shall pass an order for disbursement of compensation as per the above directions in favour of appellant with interest, because the amount has already been deposited in the fixed deposit. In view of the above directions, this appeal is disposed of.