ORDER 1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 30.8.10 passed by Additional MACT, Kukshi Distt. Dhar in Claim Case No. 13/10 whereby claim petition filed by the appellants for compensation on account of death of Guddibai in a motor accident which took place on 28.2.10 was allowed and compensation of Rs. 3,62,0001- was awarded and respondent No.3 was exonerated, present appeal has been filed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants argued at length and submits that the learned Tribunal committed error in exonerating respondent No.3 from payment of compensation. It is submitted that since the offending vehicle was insured, therefore, even if the respondent No.1 was not possessing valid driving licence for driving transport vehicle, then at the most right of recovery could have been given to the respondent No.3. It is submitted that it was not a case where respondent No.3 could have been exonerated. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, learned counsel submits that since the accident took place in the year 20 10, therefore, amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased @ Rs. 3,000/- per month which is on lower side and the deduction towards personal expenses is also on higher side. It is submitted that on other heads also amount awarded is on lower side. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, appeal tiled by the appellants be allowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced and the findings whereby respondent No.3 has been exonerated be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the cross-objection has been filed by the respondent No.2 alongwith an application for taking document on record. It is submitted that since the respondent No.1 was ex-parte before the learned Tribunal, therefore, licence could not be produced before the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that the driving licence has been filed by the respondent No.2 before this Court alongwith an application. It is submitted that the application be allowed and the documents be taken on record and the cross-objections filed by respondent No.2 be also allowed. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, learned counsel submits that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper which requires no interference. It is submitted that the appeal be dismissed. 4. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, learned counsel submits that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper which requires no interference. It is submitted that the appeal be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the application for taking documents cannot be allowed at this stage as the respondent No.2 contested the claim petition and deliberately did not file the licence before the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that the document which has been filed by respondent No.2 requires evidence, therefore, the application be dismissed. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case learned Tribunal committed no error in exonerating respondents No. 3 from payment of compensation. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, learned counsel submits that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper which requires no interference. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the appellant and consequently application for taking additional document and cross-objection filed by respondent No.2 be dismissed. 5. From perusal of the record this Court is of the view that since the accident is of the year 2010, therefore, income of the deceased assessed by the learned Tribunal @-Rs. 3,000/- per month appears to be on lower side. Similarly, deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses is on higher side. Keeping in view the fact that the deceased was widow and was having load of five children, therefore, deduction ought to have been 1/4th and income ought to have been taken as Rs. 3,800/- per month. In view of this, appellants are entitled for the following amount : Rs. 5,13,000/- toward loss of dependency. Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate. Rs. 35,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Rs. 5.58,000/- Total 6. Thus, the appellants are entitled for a total sum of Rs. 5,58,000/- instead of Rs. 3,62,000/-. The enhanced amount of Rs. 1,96,000/- shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of application. 7. So far as liability is concerned, it is true that the application for taking additional document is filed at a belated stage as the document ought to have been filed by the respondent No.2 before the learned Tribunal as respondent No.2 was contesting the case before the learned tribunal. 7. So far as liability is concerned, it is true that the application for taking additional document is filed at a belated stage as the document ought to have been filed by the respondent No.2 before the learned Tribunal as respondent No.2 was contesting the case before the learned tribunal. Since the offending vehicle was insured and the respondent No.1 was also possessing the licence and the only objection of the respondent No.3 is that the licence was not having the endorsement to drive transport vehicle and the deceased was third party, therefore, application is allowed subject to condition that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- which has been deposited by respondent No.2 shall be payable to the appellants and shall be adjusted towards liability of respondent No.3 and right of recovery is given to the respondent No.3 after verification of the driving licence. If respondent No. 3 after verification exercises right of recovery against respondent Nos. 1 & 2, then in that case respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall be at liberty to demonstrate that the respondent No. 1 was possessing valid driving licence at the time of accident. 8. The amount awarded shall be deposited by the Insurance Company with the learned tribunal and the learned tribunal is directed to invest 80% of the said amount on long term fixed deposit in the name of appellant Nos. 4 to 7 under the guardianship of appellant No.1 and in the name of appellant No. 3 equally in the nearest Nationalized Bank, in the area where the appellant Nos. 3 to 7 are residing, with the condition that the bank wil not permit any loan or advance. Interest on the said amount shall be credited on monthly basis in S.B. Account, from where withdrawal can be made as per their need. However, on an application this condition could be modified by the learned tribunal in exceptional circumstances, if made out by the appellant Nos. 3 to 7. The order shall be executable only upon payment of proportionate court fee on the enhanced amount. Respondents shall bear the cost of the appellants. 9. With the aforesaid observations, appeal stands disposed of. Manish Jain for appellants; R.R. Bhatnagar for respondent No.2; Manoj Jain for respondent No.3.