JUDGMENT Mr. T.P.S. Mann, J. (Oral):- The Insurance Company with which the offending vehicle stood insured has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) for challenging the award dated 12.12.2012 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib whereby petition filed by the claimants/ respondents No.1 to 6 under Section 166 of the Act was allowed and they were awarded a sum of Rs.4,41,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on account of death of their bread earner Chadeshvari Rai in a motor vehicular accident. The Tribunal also directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. 2. The claimants before the Tribunal were Sunita Devi, widow of Chadeshvari Rai and Mamta Kumari, Lalita Kumari, Sarwan Kumar, Suraj Kumar and Kishore Kumar, five minor children of the deceased. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the claimants had not been able to establish their relationship with deceased Chadeshvari Rai. After the accident, the dead body of Chadeshvari Rai was received by one Smt. Shobha Devi, who claimed to be his wife, and had thumb-marked the post-mortem report Ex. R-5 and the receipt Ex.R-4 prepared by the police while handing over the dead body of Chadeshvari Rai to her. However, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that claimant Smt. Sunita Devi was the widow of Chadeshvari Rai as the deceased and his family members were migrant labourers, who were not good in speaking Punjabi and, therefore, despite the fact that the claimant had stated her name as Sunita Devi it could have been wrongly recorded in post-mortem report Ex. R-5 and receipt Ex.R-4 as Shobha Devi. Moreover, the Insurance Company did not take any steps to get the thumbimpression of Sunita Devi appearing on the claim petition compared with that appearing on receipt Ex.R-4 and post-mortem report Ex.R-5. In addition, the claimants had also placed reliance on Ration Card Ex.P-10, which was issued in the name of Chadeshvari Rai and contained names of his wife and three children. On the Ration Card, the photograph of Sunita Devi and her three children stood pasted. This is an independent corroboration to the case of the claimants that they were the legal heirs of deceased Chadeshvari Rai. On the Ration Card, the photograph of Sunita Devi and her three children stood pasted. This is an independent corroboration to the case of the claimants that they were the legal heirs of deceased Chadeshvari Rai. The conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal in holding that the claimants were dependent upon Chadeshvari Rai and for that reason they were entitled to receive compensation on account of death of Chadeshvari Rai in a motor vehicular accident, thus, cannot be interfered with in the present appeal. The appeal, being without any merit is, therefore, dismissed. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant be transmitted to the Tribunal. ---------0.B.S.0------------