JUDGMENT Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.: (Oral) - C.M. No.7875-CII of 2010 & C.M. No.14412-CII of 2008 1. C.M. applications stand closed as this Court has proposed to dispose of the main appeal with the consent of both the parties. The apportionment and the entitlement to receive the share of compensation is determined in the final order passed by this Court today. FAO No.1623 of 2008 2. The appellants are widow and minor daughter of deceased Sukhdarshan Singh who died in the motor accident. The appellants herein filed separately a claim petition claiming compensation on the death of said Sukhdarshan Singh, arraying Smt.Saravjeet Kaur, the mother of the deceased as respondent No.4. The said Saravjeet Kaur, her husband, her minor daughter and son filed separately a claim petition claiming compensation on the death of deceased Sukhdarshan Singh. Both the petitions were taken up together for common disposal. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 9,62,560/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization. The Tribunal having held that the widow, minor daughter and the mother of the deceased alone are the legal representatives of the deceased who are entitled to claim compensation on the death of Sukhdarhsan Singh, apportioned the compensation in the ratio of 30:30:40 amongst the widow, minor daughter and mother, respectively. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the dependency of the appellants have not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal while apportioning the total compensation awarded in this case. The mother at the age of 49 has got the lion’s share of 40% of the compensation and the remaining 60% was to be shared both by the widow and the minor. It is his further submission that after the death of Sukhdarshan Singh, yet another baby also was born to the 1st appellant Rajbir Kaur after the accident. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 Smt.Saravjeet Kaur would submit that deceased Sukhdarshan Singh had left behind not only his widow and minor daughter, but also the mother, father and two other minor sister and brother. Therefore, the apportionment has been correctly done by the Tribunal, he submits. 5. I find that there is no discussion with respect to the rationale behind the apportionment done by the Tribunal. Therefore, the apportionment has been correctly done by the Tribunal, he submits. 5. I find that there is no discussion with respect to the rationale behind the apportionment done by the Tribunal. The very fact that the widow and the minor daughter had chosen to file separate claim petition arraying the mother of the deceased as one of the respondents and the mother joining her husband and other minor children filed a separate claim petition claiming compensation on the death of Sukhdarshan Singh would go to show that they are at logger-heads. Sukhdarshan Singh had died at a very early age of 26 years leaving behind a young widow at the age of 22. At the time of his death, he has left behind a baby aged 1½ years also. But of course, it is contended that after the accident, another baby also was born to the 1st appellant through the deceased. No documentary proof, it appears, had been produced to establish the date of birth of the child. At any rate, I find that the deceased had left behind his old parents and minor brother and sister at the age of 26. In my considered view, the total compensation awarded will have to be equally apportioned. 6. Therefore, the total compensation of Rs. 9,62,560/- is apportioned in equal shares. Each of the claimants, namely, the appellants herein and the 4th respondent shall receive a sum of Rs. 3,20,853/- with the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. 7. With the above modification in the apportionment done by the Tribunal, the appeal stands partly allowed.