Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the award dated 13.2.2008, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula, vide which application moved by the appellants for grant of compensation, on account of death of Naib Subedar Maksud, stands allowed. 2. The widow and the minor children of deceased, Naib Subedar Maksud sought compensation on account of death of the deceased in a motor vehicular accident. 3. The Pleaded case of the appellants was, that on 18.10.2005 at about 9.30 A.M. the deceased was riding on motor cycle bearing registration No. CH-03-J- 3484, and was on his way from the side of Delhi. When he was near grain market Karnal on the main road, truck traia bearing registration No. HR-046-B-8885, being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Vinod, reached there and hit the deceased from behind. The deceased was crushed under the aforesaid truck trala. 4. The case set up by the claimants was that the accident had occured due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR-46B-8885 by respondent No. 2. 5. The claim was contested by the respondents i.e. the owner and the Insurance Company, by filing written statements, wherein the averments made in the claim petition were denied, and it was averred, that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. The vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues :- "1. Whether the accident causing death of Naib Subedar Maksud took place on 18.10.2005, due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR-46B- 8885 driven by the respondent No. 2 ? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ? OPP 3. Whether the respondent No. 2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident, if so to what effect ? OPR-3 4. Relief." 7. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal held that the accident causing death of Naib Subedar Maksud, was due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR-46-B- 8885, driven by respondent No. 2. OPR-3 4. Relief." 7. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal held that the accident causing death of Naib Subedar Maksud, was due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR-46-B- 8885, driven by respondent No. 2. The income claimed was taken to be income of the deceased and thereafter by imposing cut of 1/3rd for his personal expenses, the dependency was assessed, multipier of 15 was applied, consequently the appellants were held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,12,960/- (Rupees thirteen lac twelve thousand, nine hundred and sixty only) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitin till its realisation. The liability was held to be joint and several, as issue No. 3 was decided against the insurance company. 8. The learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently contends, that compensation awarded is inadequate, as the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the family of the deceased, to come to the conclusion that the dependency was 2/3 of the income only. 9. In support of this contention the learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgment of the Honble Supreme court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi and Others, 2008 ACJ1850 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sulochana and Others, 2008 ACJ 1818. 10. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The dependency has to be determined on the facts of each case. In the present case, the appellants are also be entitled to family pension from the authorities. Therefore, keeping in view the benefits of family pension etc., the compensation awarded cannot be said to be inadequate, so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed.